Portland traffic (Beaverton, Lake Oswego, Beaver: fit in, buyers, bankruptcy)

[oldtintype]

Originally Posted by Tesaje

Double decking freeways is an efficient use of space, but an earthquake dropped the top tier in Oakland a few years ago. Not

Not only was the Cypress Structure pancaked in the 89 earthquake, the Embarcadero freeway was heavily damaged (and torn down) as well. Double decker freeways are just plain creepy. The upper deck of the Bay Bridge collapsed as well--way too many potential issues and double decker freeways are an eyesore too.

[PNWhike]

No doubt about it. Traffic in Portland is growing exponentially as more and more people relocate here from other areas of the US.

[kpaq]

217 needs to be widened. Getting home at rush hour is a nightmare, and a 2 lane freeway is a joke for such a large metro area. Murray isn't a good alternative either, gets too bad between Farmington and Walker.

[Busch71]

Originally Posted by aalverson

we could definitely use some more thorough public transportation.

Yeah, a few more bike paths and they'll have this traffic problem whipped! /sarcasm

[aalverson]

Originally Posted by Busch71

Yeah, a few more bike paths and they'll have this traffic problem whipped! /sarcasm

Yeah, just build MORE freeways and they'll have this traffic problem whipped!! SARCASM with a capital S

That's like saying "I'm getting so fat" so instead of eating less I'll just buy bigger pants. Great solution.

[HiggsBoson]

Transportation infrastructure is expensive, especially light rail, and there is a limited amount of money. Choices have to be made and people in Portland have continued to vote for people that want to spend the money on public transportation instead of road expansion and maintenance. Even is public transportation friendly Portland a majority of people have cars that they use on a regular basis, so continuing to ignore roads is probably not a good long term strategy.

What I would do is offer up highway expansion to private companies who would be willing to foot the bill 100% in exchange for revenue from the toll lanes they would add. I know people hate the idea of toll road, (mostly due to our horrendous lack of basic economic education is schools since most people think everything the government does is "free") but I think this is the only way you are going to be able to continue to spend so much on light rail/public transportation, and do some highway and road expansion.

Toll lanes would typically have less traffic, so people would have the choice to ride in the standard lanes and maybe take a little longer, or pay to get somewhere faster in the toll lanes. You could probably allow public buses on the toll lanes for free to make the idea more appealing to the general public.

I think Portlanders need to wake up to the reality that you cant have everything, there is not unlimited funds, and not enough money to expand public transportation enough to eliminate the need for new roads or expansions, its going to have to happen.

[aalverson]

Those are valid and interesting points from an economic perspective. However, my thoughts are expressed from the position that this is less of an economic issue and more of an environmental one.

[PNW-type-gal]

Eisenhower started us down the "cars over all other forms of transit" road. In an era of unlimited oil and resources, including land, it worked great.

That was then. Increasingly we live in an era of finite resources, and what worked in 1950 isn't going to work in 2020. Look at Los Angeles, for example - adding more lanes to freeways (and adding additional freeways) just pushed the problem back another 5 years or so. I remember when the Banfield and the I-205 bridge opened - the first six months to a year, there wasn't any traffic to speak of. It didn't take long for traffic to build up. The solution isnt building another Banfield or another bridge over the Columbia every 5-10 years

[nancy thereader]

But, otoh , as lovethegreen says, you would not want Portland to go the way of Los Angeles or even San Francisco where the traffic has altered the ways of healthful and peaceful lives .

[hymalaia]

congestion is a given in any decent sized metro. I don't care how big your freeways are. LA, Houston, Atlanta etc. have the most extensive freeways in history. They also have some of the worst gridlock. The idea that more lanes = less congestion, while it makes sense initially, ignores the reality about how traffic works. From a long term perspective more freeways will cost a lot and not solve the traffic problem. If it siphoned funds meant for transit it could make traffic worse by forcing those who would otherwise ride the train into cars. Same goes to cyclists, btw. Fact is, a cyclist is taking up a tiny fraction of the space that a driver does. If everyone cycled there we'd all get places a lot faster. The infrastructure is already there and would need very little maintenance if only bicycles used it. I know there are other factors but our cultures obsession with vehicles is very illogical from many sane perspectives.