Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You know... I thought maybe somebody bumped up an old topic that had been lying around on the server out of boredom. Really. Six pages overnight? Ye gods. There needs to be a moratorium on traffic threads. All this hostility and bad energy over something that cannot be changed!
Unless I way miss my guess, Portland's traffic infrastructure hasn't changed much from when I was born. That would be 1959. Hmmm. What was the population of Portland in '59? 330K. I checked. Now there is double that many people, and far more of them drive than in 1959. Uh... ya think there would be traffic issues? Ya think?!
So.... what to do. Oh you have ideas all you amateur Civil Engineers. None of them practical. Most of them mutually exclusive. All involve widening existing roads which creates eminent domain headaches and well... I don't know... if a Columbia Bridge project which wouldn't involve any of those issues died on the cost overruns alone... ...
As I see it the main issues with traffic are the bottlenecks into and out of downtown. These are exacerbated by the timing of traffic lights and the low speed limits in town which limit how well the downtown grid can absorb flow from I-5, 405, 26, etc. The only practical solution is to raise in town speeds to 45mph and time traffic lights to allow much longer runs for traffic and little to no pedestrian crossing time. As a pedestrian and cyclist this would impact me much more than any of you that constantly hash out this conundrum but I would deal with the lowered safety and heightened inconvenience to hear the last of this "traffic sucks" argument once and for all.
There are not going to be any new roads. There are not going to be any roads widened, drivers are not going to suddenly learn how to tailgate one another at 10mph over the posted (~25mph?) to increase efficiency of traffic stream. However, with no infrastructure improvement costs, other than the small ones associated with removing all the striping for bike lanes and bike boxes. That's right. No bicycle traffic through Portland Downtown! I am willing to make that sacrifice too as I don't find riding a bike in Downtown all that much fun anyway.
I hope you got a little warm and fuzzy reading about what it could be like in Portland if drivers could take back the streets full time. Sadly I fear that it won't happen. Neither the way I think, nor the way any of you think. Things are going to mostly stay exactly the way they are at present for a very long time. Deal with it.
You know... I thought maybe somebody bumped up an old topic that had been lying around on the server out of boredom. Really. Six pages overnight? Ye gods. There needs to be a moratorium on traffic threads. All this hostility and bad energy over something that cannot be changed!
Unless I way miss my guess, Portland's traffic infrastructure hasn't changed much from when I was born. That would be 1959. Hmmm. What was the population of Portland in '59? 330K. I checked. Now there is double that many people, and far more of them drive than in 1959. Uh... ya think there would be traffic issues? Ya think?!
So.... what to do. Oh you have ideas all you amateur Civil Engineers. None of them practical. Most of them mutually exclusive. All involve widening existing roads which creates eminent domain headaches and well... I don't know... if a Columbia Bridge project which wouldn't involve any of those issues died on the cost overruns alone... ...
As I see it the main issues with traffic are the bottlenecks into and out of downtown. These are exacerbated by the timing of traffic lights and the low speed limits in town which limit how well the downtown grid can absorb flow from I-5, 405, 26, etc. The only practical solution is to raise in town speeds to 45mph and time traffic lights to allow much longer runs for traffic and little to no pedestrian crossing time. As a pedestrian and cyclist this would impact me much more than any of you that constantly hash out this conundrum but I would deal with the lowered safety and heightened inconvenience to hear the last of this "traffic sucks" argument once and for all.
There are not going to be any new roads. There are not going to be any roads widened, drivers are not going to suddenly learn how to tailgate one another at 10mph over the posted (~25mph?) to increase efficiency of traffic stream. However, with no infrastructure improvement costs, other than the small ones associated with removing all the striping for bike lanes and bike boxes. That's right. No bicycle traffic through Portland Downtown! I am willing to make that sacrifice too as I don't find riding a bike in Downtown all that much fun anyway.
I hope you got a little warm and fuzzy reading about what it could be like in Portland if drivers could take back the streets full time. Sadly I fear that it won't happen. Neither the way I think, nor the way any of you think. Things are going to mostly stay exactly the way they are at present for a very long time. Deal with it.
H
The way I see it, it doesn't bother me one bit with people complaining about sitting in traffic while I am getting around just fine on my bike, as well as relying on the bus and light rail from time to time.
People sitting in traffic will either start looking into alternatives, move away, or continue to sit in traffic, but as long as Portland continues to put the pedestrian first I am happy.
Location: Winter nightime low 60,summer daytime high 85, sunny 300 days/year, no hablamos ingles aquí
700 posts, read 1,499,982 times
Reputation: 1132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisesturm
The only practical solution is to raise in town speeds to 45mph and time traffic lights to allow much longer runs for traffic and little to no pedestrian crossing time.
n 23 October 2003 TfL published a report reviewing the first six months of the charge. The report's main findings were that the average number of cars and delivery vehicles entering the central zone was 60,000 fewer than the previous year. Around 50–60% of this reduction was attributed to transfers to public transport, 20–30% to journeys avoiding the zone, 15–25% switching to car share, and the remainder to reduced number of journeys, more travelling outside the hours of operation, and increased use of motorbikes and bicycles. Journey times were found to have been reduced by 14%
Quote:
TfL's annual report for 2006–7 shows that revenues from the congestion charge were £252.4m over the financial year, representing 8.5% of TfL's annual revenues. More than half of this was spent on the cost of running the toll system, at £130.1 million. Once other charges were deducted, the congestion charge brought in an annual operating net income of £89.1m for TfL
Charging vehicles to enter the city center would decrease the traffic everywhere (fewer cars going towards the city center)
Alas, the freedom-and-car-loving Americans will not take orders form those pinko-commie Europeans.
The way I see it, it doesn't bother me one bit with people complaining about sitting in traffic while I am getting around just fine on my bike, as well as relying on the bus and light rail from time to time.
People sitting in traffic will either start looking into alternatives, move away, or continue to sit in traffic, but as long as Portland continues to put the pedestrian first I am happy.
And that's a really privileged attitude. Granted, I often ride a bike but I CAN. Many people can't either because they physically can't, they have small kids to drop at daycare or they just can't pull it off for 10,000 other reasons such as disability or distance. As someone who has to do school pick ups/drop offs around work I can attest that sometimes you just need to drive (even if that's grabbing a zip car). I'm all about public transport and I think biking is great and I do it but there are huge sections of society who will not be able to just ride a bike or move closer. I live close in, I take public transport, I have made a lot of choices to NOT put myself in a position where I have to commute but I know that I'm very lucky too to have been able to pull it off.
I think there are some people who truly don't care that they are contributing to traffic and make a lot of dumb choices (like some of the people who come on here who are OK with an hour long commute because they're used to it where they're coming from) but there are a lot of people who are in situations where they can't make changes and they are stuck commuting. Seniors, people with disabilities, pregnant people, people who have one car and have to pick up kids while the other family member commutes on bus, people who can't afford to live close in because they make slightly over minimum wage, etc. It's really obnoxious to just write everyone off and say they should make changes and ride their bikes.
Again, this is coming from someone who DOES in fact ride a bike and public transport. But again, I'm also aware there are a lot of people out there who are not exactly like me. The situation is complicated.
With all of that said, the number of people alone in cars who commute every day to Vancouver really **** me off. Carpool! I'd say on my own UNscientific observations 90% of the cars have one person in them heading toward Vancouver in the evening. Changes can be made. But again, it's complicated.
Charging bridge fees from Vancouver to Portland might make a big difference. I know in San Fran there are formal and informal carpools because it's so expensive to cross the bridges that it's an incentive to be able to go quickly thru the line as a carpool and not have to pay. There are currently no incentives to not drive other than the traffic itself. If there were a financial incentive I think more people would get creative and carpool.
As I see it the main issues with traffic are the bottlenecks into and out of downtown. These are exacerbated by the timing of traffic lights and the low speed limits in town which limit how well the downtown grid can absorb flow from I-5, 405, 26, etc. The only practical solution is to raise in town speeds to 45mph and time traffic lights to allow much longer runs for traffic and little to no pedestrian crossing time. As a pedestrian and cyclist this would impact me much more than any of you that constantly hash out this conundrum but I would deal with the lowered safety and heightened inconvenience to hear the last of this "traffic sucks" argument once and for all.
I agree with most of your post, but I don't think the traffic lights and speed limits on local roads are the issue - if that were the case you'd expect the most congestion on 405. It's merge design - there are too many places where the layout requires streams of traffic crossing each other.
The I-5 to 84 northbound interchange is a good example, but also westbound onto 26. The traffic merging from 405 onto 26 has to merge across traffic entering the roadway, and then again merge into the prevailing traffic on 26 and that lane comes to a complete stop. Meanwhile 405 traffic that's not trying to enter/exit the roadway is blowing at/over posted speed with no congestion at all.
There's no lights at all causing that bottleneck and traffic is transferring from one high-speed road to another.
Quote:
Again, this is coming from someone who DOES in fact ride a bike and public transport. But again, I'm also aware there are a lot of people out there who are not exactly like me. The situation is complicated.
With all of that said, the number of people alone in cars who commute every day to Vancouver really **** me off. Carpool! I'd say on my own UNscientific observations 90% of the cars have one person in them heading toward Vancouver in the evening. Changes can be made. But again, it's complicated.
Charging bridge fees from Vancouver to Portland might make a big difference. I know in San Fran there are formal and informal carpools because it's so expensive to cross the bridges that it's an incentive to be able to go quickly thru the line as a carpool and not have to pay. There are currently no incentives to not drive other than the traffic itself. If there were a financial incentive I think more people would get creative and carpool.
I agree with that. Weekday tolls at least on the bridges might help in that area. I also live near enough to work that I bike commute most of the time, but on days when I have no choice but to drive somewhere (off-site work meeting, family obligation, medical appt.) it's pretty rough. And frankly, if I changed jobs I'd have to move - while I rent now that's somewhat feasible, but if I owned, it wouldn't be practical.
And that's a really privileged attitude. Granted, I often ride a bike but I CAN. Many people can't either because they physically can't, they have small kids to drop at daycare or they just can't pull it off for 10,000 other reasons such as disability or distance. As someone who has to do school pick ups/drop offs around work I can attest that sometimes you just need to drive (even if that's grabbing a zip car). I'm all about public transport and I think biking is great and I do it but there are huge sections of society who will not be able to just ride a bike or move closer. I live close in, I take public transport, I have made a lot of choices to NOT put myself in a position where I have to commute but I know that I'm very lucky too to have been able to pull it off.
I have to ask you, is my attitude any more privileged than someone sitting in traffic wishing their commute via car could be traffic free so they can zip to and from home easily? Everyone driving wants to have no traffic on the road so their commutes can be easy. When I ride my bike, my commute is traffic free, so me personally am not worried about someone sitting in traffic wishing they weren't.
On an urban planning metro level, my opinions are much different because that isn't about me, but when people are complaining about traffic, they are making it all about them.
Quote:
I think there are some people who truly don't care that they are contributing to traffic and make a lot of dumb choices (like some of the people who come on here who are OK with an hour long commute because they're used to it where they're coming from) but there are a lot of people who are in situations where they can't make changes and they are stuck commuting. Seniors, people with disabilities, pregnant people, people who have one car and have to pick up kids while the other family member commutes on bus, people who can't afford to live close in because they make slightly over minimum wage, etc. It's really obnoxious to just write everyone off and say they should make changes and ride their bikes.
Again, this is coming from someone who DOES in fact ride a bike and public transport. But again, I'm also aware there are a lot of people out there who are not exactly like me. The situation is complicated.
With all of that said, the number of people alone in cars who commute every day to Vancouver really **** me off. Carpool! I'd say on my own UNscientific observations 90% of the cars have one person in them heading toward Vancouver in the evening. Changes can be made. But again, it's complicated.
Charging bridge fees from Vancouver to Portland might make a big difference. I know in San Fran there are formal and informal carpools because it's so expensive to cross the bridges that it's an incentive to be able to go quickly thru the line as a carpool and not have to pay. There are currently no incentives to not drive other than the traffic itself. If there were a financial incentive I think more people would get creative and carpool.
Actually having a couple where one uses the car to do any needed pick ups or drop offs, while the other uses transportation or bikes is considered doing their part to reduce traffic in the city because they are taking one car off the road. Could you imagine the change in traffic here is 1/3 of the people driving started biking or using transportation because they are doing this method.
Vancouver traffic is one of my biggest pet peeves because it is all Vancouver's fault that they add to our metro's traffic, yet have no interest in being a part of the solution. I am all for sticking tolls on the bridges and charging Washingtonians for any road upgrades needed due to their traffic they create. I also like the idea if they wish to avoid the toll cost, there should be a carpool lane that lets those that carpool get through toll free.
You might be onto something with this, unfortunately it will probably never happen, but it would definitely change the driving habits of our neighbors to the north.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
