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.
Phil is correct. Portland has made a political decision to attempt to force people out of their cars and onto transit by not expanding road capacity to meet demand. The result, ironically, is probably even *more* suburbanization than what would occur if you'd built the bridges and roads in the first place.
This is an ideological battle of left vs. right here on transportation planning and how society 'should' be shaped. I personally think that efforts to force Americans into higher density cities and taking away cars are doomed to failure; we are not Europe, we have far too much open land and plenty of cities in other parts of the country that will be happy to take economic development away from areas like Portland whose taxes and unreasonable restrictions on personal choice and freedom are seen as too draconian.
That's why people - who can - are moving to the other side of the river, for housing they can afford and taxation at reasonable rates. Portland is not unique in that sense compared to other large cities...
There are a lot of good things that come out of better integrated transportation/land-use planning, and as someone who has been a professional transportation planner for 20+ years I think we do need more choices, including non-motorized and peds, but we also need to acknowledge that the car is with us and isn't going away - how it is powered will change - but Americans will move away before they will be forced to take transit and share their space with people who are not part of their social class/ethnic group... at least outside of some of the megacities and exceptions to the rule like Portland.
IMHO, Portland has killed itself economically with the draconian urban boundary restrictions. Businesses will continue to leave, the demand for services to the underclasses (most of whom now refuse to work since the Great Society has created an underclass that feels it is entitled to benefits - and this underclass isn't restricted to large cities or certain ethnic groups, its everywhere - its just more visible in big cities because its concentrated there) will increase... at least until society puts its collective foot back down and ends the portions of experiments in collectivism that haven't worked.
As to the greenhouse gas argument for more compact development, that is a red herring. Extremely modest gains in the efficiency of the vehicle fleet quickly and completely overwhelm anything that can be done to the built environment (short of herding people into new Cabrini-Greens at gunpoint from the suburbs) to cut greenhouse gases... if global warming is occuring, and there's a pretty good argument that says *no* one really understands what's going on.
I'm all for making cars and energy use more efficient and moving away from fossil fuels, but forcing people to live a certain way because of rigid ideology - ultimately - over the long-term just results in failure.
If we really want a more livable world, we should be investing heavily in fusion reactor research along with renewables, develop a serious space program so we can move humanity off of the planet in case of an irreversible disaster (wait - already have enough of it moved off so the disaster makes no difference), and we need to start reversing the explosive growth of human population. I don't think anyone would argue that the planet would NOT be better off with a human population 1/2 to 1/4 of its present day size.
Yes, traffic is bad everywhere in the Portland area, and yes people can be cautious to a fault, but Sherwood is a special case in how NOT to do transportation planning.
Sherwood was a tiny little bedroom community that started growing quickly at exactly the wrong time:
1. Highway 99 became a popular route for people to go to coast, gamble at Indian casinos, go wine tasting, etc.
2. Every other community between Sherwood and Portland was already built up along with their transportation connections (to each other, not to Sherwood).
3. The west side bypass (imagine something like I-205 but along the west side, connecting Wilsonville, Newberg/Sherwood, Hillsboro, and Vancouver)) had recently been axed from consideration (it would be enormously expensive, especially the portion between Hillsboro & Vancouver).
4. An east/west connection for Sherwood has also been put on the back burner for at least decade because there is no money and everyone is afraid that new highways (see #3) will encourage more sprawl (a point which has already been discussed in this thread).
Despite all these factors, a bunch of builders and planners thought it would be a swell idea to take advantage of the cheaper land and beautiful views and build a ton of new homes up in Sherwood without any thought as to how people would get in and out of there, and now you have thousands of people trying to navigate two lane, stoplight-riddled roads during rush hour.
Why is traffic so bad? Because you live in Sherwood, that's why.
IMHO, Portland has killed itself economically with the draconian urban boundary restrictions. Businesses will continue to leave, the demand for services to the underclasses (most of whom now refuse to work since the Great Society has created an underclass that feels it is entitled to benefits - and this underclass isn't restricted to large cities or certain ethnic groups, its everywhere - its just more visible in big cities because its concentrated there) will increase... at least until society puts its collective foot back down and ends the portions of experiments in collectivism that haven't worked.
Your analysis is correct if applied to any city other than Portland. Portland prides itself on its underclass. People come to Portland specifically to join the underclass. The corner beggars, the teen homeless, the meth addicts, these are all attractions/entertainment. Keep Portland weird etc etc.
UGB keeps property values high, which in turn keeps rental prices stable. High property values keep property taxes high, which funds social projects like, Metro, another layer of bureaucracy that controls the UGB. This tidy little cycle is funded by wealthy out-of-towners that purchase artificially expensive property, or less wealthy relocaters that become wage slaves due to lack of industries, but more importantly have to rent. And what keeps people coming here is so they can live "green".
So Portland has no incentive to help businesses. No incentive to build affordable housing. No incentive to improve roads. No incentive to relieve traffic congestion. Everything will all be fine until it all crashes. Which it will.
Your analysis is correct if applied to any city other than Portland. Portland prides itself on its underclass. People come to Portland specifically to join the underclass. The corner beggars, the teen homeless, the meth addicts, these are all attractions/entertainment. Keep Portland weird etc etc.
UGB keeps property values high, which in turn keeps rental prices stable. High property values keep property taxes high, which funds social projects like, Metro, another layer of bureaucracy that controls the UGB. This tidy little cycle is funded by wealthy out-of-towners that purchase artificially expensive property, or less wealthy relocaters that become wage slaves due to lack of industries, but more importantly have to rent. And what keeps people coming here is so they can live "green".
So Portland has no incentive to help businesses. No incentive to build affordable housing. No incentive to improve roads. No incentive to relieve traffic congestion. Everything will all be fine until it all crashes. Which it will.
So you have a "deliberate" underclass? Interesting... its going to be a disaster if California (well, it already is a joke with the medicinal stuff) recreational pot. We'll have stoners all over the place, sitting around being dumb stupid stoned.
[Why is traffic so bad? Because you live in Sherwood, that's why.]
I actually find it easy to get to I-5 and I-205 from Sherwood. I do avoid Tual/Sherwood Blvd in the evening, I take a back way out by the shooting range and firemen training center which isn't that bad. It's when I'm on the freeway that I run into trouble. I get that there are a lot of cars on the road, but for example, I worked this weekend and from my garage to 84 taking 205 on a Saturday took 27mins. From where 84 and 205 meet with the construction taking the GJ down to 2 lanes to me getting to work in Vancouver took 1 hour and 17mins. I witnessed people coming to complete stops in all lanes to let people enter the freeway and to just switch lanes. All traffic could have flowed at on ramps at slow speeds with just the alternating of letting cars enter and the same concept with the lanes decreasing to two. It didn't happen like that and it won't happen like that. My complaint is not where I live, I knew I had no freeway access when choosing to live in Sherwood. I can be on the freeway in just 3 stop lights, it's just how people drive once on the freeway that confuses me.
IMHO, Portland has killed itself economically with the draconian urban boundary restrictions. Businesses will continue to leave, the demand for services to the underclasses (most of whom now refuse to work since the Great Society has created an underclass that feels it is entitled to benefits - and this underclass isn't restricted to large cities or certain ethnic groups, its everywhere - its just more visible in big cities because its concentrated there) will increase... at least until society puts its collective foot back down and ends the portions of experiments in collectivism that haven't worked.
<snipped for comment purposes>
I agree with most everything you've said, but Oregonians don't want what happened in Southern California - and MANY other parts of the entire country as well - to happen to Oregon. And they are absolutely right. I know a realtor who would destroy the entire area between Corvallis and Battle Ground if only he and his cronies could. Won't happen.
Also, you'reforgetting that "the Great Society" was created to ASSIST those who are on the unfortunate end of capitalism. They are not small in numbers. That's the nature of the game of capitalism - some win big, some win medium, and some lose out.
We are not supposed to let those people die on the side of the road without food, shelter, decent schools or medical care. We are supposed to create VIABLE PROGRAMS to get them back into them mainstream. Funny how in 50 years we've not been able to accomplish that and that is the fault of BOTH side of the political ideology, not just one. Until there is truly consensus building and working together, it won't happen.
I'm a cynic. I don't believe it will happen, especially as long as the toxic talk in our society gets worse and worse.
I agree with most everything you've said, but Oregonians don't want what happened in Southern California - and MANY other parts of the entire country as well - to happen to Oregon. And they are absolutely right. I know a realtor who would destroy the entire area between Corvallis and Battle Ground if only he and his cronies could. Won't happen.
Also, you'reforgetting that "the Great Society" was created to ASSIST those who are on the unfortunate end of capitalism. They are not small in numbers. That's the nature of the game of capitalism - some win big, some win medium, and some lose out.
We are not supposed to let those people die on the side of the road without food, shelter, decent schools or medical care. We are supposed to create VIABLE PROGRAMS to get them back into them mainstream. Funny how in 50 years we've not been able to accomplish that and that is the fault of BOTH side of the political ideology, not just one. Until there is truly consensus building and working together, it won't happen.
I'm a cynic. I don't believe it will happen, especially as long as the toxic talk in our society gets worse and worse.
I do think there's a place for programs for children, the very old, and those that are profoundly handicapped. Beyond that, we need to require work, and we absolutely should cut off drug users permanently from any benefits of any kind. We also should quit subsidizing people squirting out kids for more welfare benefits. After one child, if you have another, the second child should be put in an orphanage if you are incapable of taking care of the child.
The Great Society failed because it didn't contain incentives to get people off of the assistance in the first place. The other part of our failure is our inability as a culture to frankly discuss racism - although I prefer the term "ethnic conflicts" - in a honest, open manner and to quit the blame game. Take responsibility for yourself and quit being a victim.
I also am a strong believer that everyone should pay taxes. We are destroying the middle class in this country by allowing "the poor" to pay nothing and to avoid working, and giving tax breaks to the rich rich so that there will be "trickle down". Its burning the candle at both ends and the middle class is the candle. I've read stats that roughly 50 percent of the population now does not pay taxes (that is potential eligible to pay taxes).
That's just unbelievable. Aside from the elderly, children, handicapped, everyone should be contributing to society. Look at all the garbage by the side of the road, WPA facilities that could be rebuilt. If you don't want to work, or there's no private sector work available, you should be doing *something* productive 8 hours a day in return for that check if you are able bodied (and during WPA, they had vo-tech classes for people in the evenings so that they could learn a skill besides using a shovel). Otherwise, starve.
For 40 years I've wondered why people aren't required to do SOMETHING for the money they get from "welfare." I understand that AFDC people are involved with the care and transport of their children during the day, but many of them could do that work while the children are at school or in athletics practice.
But I absolutely agree with you: EVERYONE should pay taxes. If they can, they should pay the percentage the middle class pays not this b.s. 15% across the board (does anyone believe they really end up paying that high a percentage??!!) If they can't, they should do community service for the handout. Handouts to the poor and the rich refusing to allow themselves to be taxed is what's killed our economy and almost irretrievably compromised our entire infrastructure.
I firmly believe that teenage and welfare pregnancies are mostly bogus. A recent study showed that teenage males were "OK" with their partners becoming pregnant! The welfare consciousness is getting worse as more and more people fall through the cracks.
Getting back on topic, I'm from Southern California (raised - Portland born). Our solution was "build another freeway". When I first lived there, there were TWO freeways. They don't build 'em til the tax revenue comes in, which ends up being 5-7 years too late.
I hate to say it, but there needs to be an expressway running through outer SE from the 205 to Hwy 26 (like the one running from Clackamas to Sellwood). There also needs to be a bridge from Milwaukee to north Lake Oswego. Can you imagine the squawking if those ideas were even broached?
For 40 years I've wondered why people aren't required to do SOMETHING for the money they get from "welfare." I understand that AFDC people are involved with the care and transport of their children during the day, but many of them could do that work while the children are at school or in athletics practice.
But I absolutely agree with you: EVERYONE should pay taxes. If they can, they should pay the percentage the middle class pays not this b.s. 15% across the board (does anyone believe they really end up paying that high a percentage??!!) If they can't, they should do community service for the handout. Handouts to the poor and the rich refusing to allow themselves to be taxed is what's killed our economy and almost irretrievably compromised our entire infrastructure.
I firmly believe that teenage and welfare pregnancies are mostly bogus. A recent study showed that teenage males were "OK" with their partners becoming pregnant! The welfare consciousness is getting worse as more and more people fall through the cracks.
I would argue that we should change the dialogue to being that having a child that you can't support is a form of environmental damage - both to the natural and the human environment.
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.
