Will Portland ever build more freeway lanes? (Salem, Lake Oswego: best city, maintenance)

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by drum bro

You would have to widen a freeway and build a new bridge over the Willamette river, plus going threw a hill.

I'd rather have light rail go down i5 and I205 then have that

Okay.....I am not sure I have any idea what you are talking about....

[sorupaa]

to have the expressway or freeway that goes around downtown portland would be nice but that could wait until a earthquake hits

[SETabor]

Originally Posted by drum bro

You would have to widen a freeway and build a new bridge over the Willamette river, plus going threw a hill.

I'd rather have light rail go down i5 and I205 then have that

I've always thought the west side bypass will somehow be a faster, straighter version of Skyline with it coming out of the west hills north of Portland. I don't know if the dream version has it's own Columbia crossing near Ridgefield, if it involves Sauvie Island ending up closer to Vancouver Lake, somehow crosses through St. John's and either hooks up with I-5 or I-405. And it's the through the west hills and connecting to something somewhere that's the real hurdle.

[kapetrich]

This is a bit of a case study in the DC metro, but the overall point holds in many places: PlanItMetro » Eight-Car Trains on Metro is Equivalent to Widening I-66 in Arlington by Two Lanes

"Adding two extra cars to a six-car Metrorail train might not seem like much, but it is equivalent to widening I-66 through Arlington by two lanes. Plus, it’d likely be cheaper and faster for commuters, too."

[searching for prudence]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

MAX going out to the suburbs has nothing to do with any need for a new west side highway. As of now I am not sure there is even any real political push on the west side for a highway.

Actually Portland has been able to force its anti-car/pro-MAX will on the suburbs through this government entity. Note that it only covers the OR side of the river, Vancouver and Clark County are not a part of it, if they were I'm sure they would be much further along in forcing MAX on Vancouver and would have vetoed most of the recent highway expansion projects on the WA side too.

As to the failed Interstate Bridge replacement project, Portland succeeded not only in forcing it to include light rail, they also successfully halved the number of highway lanes from the USDOT recommendation. In my opinion there is sufficient support for either an adequate replacement highway bridge or a 3rd bridge either west or east (the opponents are currently pursuing an eastside bridge between 192nd and Troutdale) on the WA side of the river.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by searching for prudence

Actually Portland has been able to force its anti-car/pro-MAX will on the suburbs through this government entity. Note that it only covers the OR side of the river, Vancouver and Clark County are not a part of it, if they were I'm sure they would be much further along in forcing MAX on Vancouver and would have vetoed most of the recent highway expansion projects on the WA side too.

Actually that is Metro and Metro is the regional government for the region. It makes sense to wish to expand MAX because more rail means less demand on land consuming highways and highway expansions. Obviously that doesn't mean no highways should be built, as the outer parts of the city, especially the Westside grow, there is going to be a needed demand for a westside bypass to better connect those cities and towns.

But that doesnt change the fact that expanding MAX is a big priority for Metro when it comes to providing regional transportation alternatives to the entire region.

As to the failed Interstate Bridge replacement project, Portland succeeded not only in forcing it to include light rail, they also successfully halved the number of highway lanes from the USDOT recommendation. In my opinion there is sufficient support for either an adequate replacement highway bridge or a 3rd bridge either west or east (the opponents are currently pursuing an eastside bridge between 192nd and Troutdale) on the WA side of the river.

That is a whole other issue, Portland should be able to push for light rail to be included with the new bridge because it would be designed to service Portland. Portland doesn't need the bridge as much as Vancouver does. Personally I think light rail should be included with that project and a toll should be tacked on it for anyone with a Washington plate to pay for because their state doesn't think it is as important of a project.

[bler144]

Originally Posted by searching for prudence

As to the failed Interstate Bridge replacement project, Portland succeeded not only in forcing it to include light rail, they also successfully halved the number of highway lanes from the USDOT recommendation. In my opinion there is sufficient support for either an adequate replacement highway bridge or a 3rd bridge either west or east (the opponents are currently pursuing an eastside bridge between 192nd and Troutdale) on the WA side of the river.

In general I don't think the number of lanes on the I-5 bridge is the problem, it's the constant merging of traffic entering/exiting. It's a problem even south of the bridge but northbound on the bridge it's the immediate succession of MLK/Denver then Hayden Isl ->14/Downtown ->SR500

A 3rd bridge on the east side probably doesn't do much to help the Interstate bridge, but it could certainly take a load off 205, and particularly the 84/205/airport/bridge area, which is a mess.

That said, on the west side, unless you're talking about a real west-side bypass for through traffic, you could still take a load off with a local access bridge to Hayden Isle or a bridge for local traffic crossing between Vanc/Pdx that doesn't really need to be on the Interstate at all). The key isn't lanes so much as streamlining the flow, and that means limiting the number of merges in that stretch, whether by rearranging the flow design (dedicated express lane?) or better, eliminating the need for the interstate bridge to double as a local access bridge. IMO.

[Edit - though arguably if you create a way for traffic to jump from 14 south of the river bypassing I-5 you might still have a logjam of traffic on the local roads]

[urbanlife78]

I am actually surprised there isn't a local bridge from Portland to Hayden Island, that in itself would provide some needed traffic relief.

[searching for prudence]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

I am actually surprised there isn't a local bridge from Portland to Hayden Island, that in itself would provide some needed traffic relief.

You can go through the reams of officially released information from the Columbia River Crossing Project, but I believe the idea idea of having both an interchange on Hayden Island and local bridge access to it was firmly rebuked. The final plan called for eliminating the Hayden Island interchange, so it would have been access by a local bridge only.

The CRC project would only help one bottleneck, and arguably not the worst one on the I-5/405 corridor through Portland. They still need more lanes all the way through Portland and an alternative route, (even if it isn't the full freeway version of a Westside bypass). The powers that be, have been very successful in preventing adding freeway lanes and other highway improvement projects throughout the Portland area.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by searching for prudence

You can go through the reams of officially released information from the Columbia River Crossing Project, but I believe the idea idea of having both an interchange on Hayden Island and local bridge access to it was firmly rebuked. The final plan called for eliminating the Hayden Island interchange, so it would have been access by a local bridge only.

The CRC project would only help one bottleneck, and arguably not the worst one on the I-5/405 corridor through Portland. They still need more lanes all the way through Portland and an alternative route, (even if it isn't the full freeway version of a Westside bypass). The powers that be, have been very successful in preventing adding freeway lanes and other highway improvement projects throughout the Portland area.

Adding freeway lanes doesn't fix the solutions. Often times when lanes are added, it does nothing to alleviate the traffic.