Except that you've ignored the part about the tunnel. Widening 26 all the way except for the tunnel doesn't do you much good - you just get a bigger jam at the tunnel. And widening the tunnel will be very expensive - not just in construction, but in settling lawsuits from those who live above it. The section between 158th and 185th is the easiest possible widening project - flat land, lots of right-of-way available, no complex intersections, little environmental impact. Your factor of 3 is probably inadequate. It's not actually that simple. At some point you can't add anymore lanes to 26 [That point may, in fact, have been reached already in places]. Then what are you going to do? barfo
The tunnel was 3 lanes before. Most of 26 west of Sylvan was not. This is what I am talking about. Add the fact that it actually helps for getting people that want to get off at 217 and before the tunnel and you are not correct here. The issue was that they spent 10 times what it would have cost to expand 26 to 3 lanes for a quarter of the people given the proper time-frame costs. That was mind-boggling stupid. Please... it is no different from anywhere up to Silvan - the only reason I gave the *3 figure is for the 217 junction - and I was being very, very large with this estimate there. The correct answer is probably to convert routes 10 and 8 to a highway structure instead of the current small-road format. Same can be said about Cornell. Of course there is the long-dormant circle road that would converge into 99 or I5 as well. Anyway you look at it - we are now 14 years after the west side line - and the 26 expansion has not been finished yet - it was a gross miscalculation and stupid use of transportation money.
Well, certainly some of the traffic on 26 is local rather than thru to downtown, no question. However, that doesn't change the fact that the tunnel is a bottleneck. I misunderstood you though. I thought you were arguing for now adding an additional lane into town. If you are simply arguing that they should have built the existing extra lane before building the existing rail line, I guess I don't have an opinion about that, other than to say that the money doesn't necessarily come out of the same pot - it might not have been an either-or choice at the time. No, you weren't. Sure, it's flat up to where it isn't flat anymore. It's wide up to where it isn't wide anymore. Sylvan to downtown is the tough part. West of that is easy. As for the 217 interchange, take a look at the cost estimates for the new I-5 bridge - the interchanges cost more than the bridge. Or you could just move to LA, if you like that sort of thing. We'll agree to disagree [/maxiep] barfo
I don't have time to go through multiple sites to check you math so I just pulled one article touting Portland's Rail system (maybe WES is not one of it's strengths) LINK Besides the money argument rail has a lot of quality of life advantages over cars like less air pollution, ability to use time productively while commuting and reducing stress. This is a country of choices. You can't say "the car is the best method for everybody to commute to work". We should have a balanced infrastructure
I read this entire thread, but wanted to comment on the bolded. I agree we should have a balanced infrastructure. As I read it, though, the counter-point is that the tax-based funding of this infrastructure is extremely imbalanced, at least in terms of end users. I think that is also worth noting and considering when assessing the benefits of any rail system. I live in Tualatin, and the WES train was supposed to be some sort of big deal. I literally don't know a single person who uses it, and when my wife and I wanted to take our girls on it on a Saturday to have some fun, we found out it doesn't even run on weekends!
It's a commuter train, not a toy. That said, it isn't clear to me that it will be a success. The line was laid out because that's where they had right-of-way, not because that's where the commuters were going. In the long run, commuters/employers may adjust to take advantage of the line, but that certainly isn't guaranteed. barfo
The commute in Portland is shorter not because of the train, it's because of the UGB and the compact size of the city. Once you figure this out - it is pretty clear that the entire argument is flawed... - it was shorter before the Max was extended - for the exact same reason. The two things are not related - as the number of people the Max carries daily is less than 10% of the traffic in the city. It simply does nothing for this argument. Sure it does, for those lucky enough to use it. Since the Max can not serve most of the commuters - and the funds going to it instead of the cheaper, higher impact solution of adding lanes to existing, outdated highways, it actually causes more stress and more time waste for the vast majority of commuters.
We were going to commute to Beaverton for the day, where we used to live, and show our kids some of the areas. Instead, we stayed local and drove to Bridgeport Village for a movie. It's been a disaster so far. Success is out of the question at this point. Managing losses should be the focus. More pie-in-the-sky bullshit rammed through by Metro. What the hell, it's only tens of millions of tax dollars to build and maintain the boondoggle that is mostly empty on weekdays, and out of service on weekends.
The links have already been posted, and the numbers have been shown in this thread. Do you think it makes sense for nearly a billion dollars to be spent on a transportation system that services only those who live close to it in a convenient manner, while the majority has much less money spent on making a car commute easier?
When the next gas crunch hits, those car commuters will be glad there is an alternative available. In the long term, the suburbs are going to wither and die (or become self-sufficient for jobs) because no one will be able to afford to drive to work in the city. It's not the 1950s anymore. We can't just build more and more freeways. One, there's no place to put them, and two, people have seen the result now, and it is not that nice. barfo
Electric cars. We do not have the density to really make light-rail a cost effective solution. Unlikely. Telecommuting, electric grid cars and staggered shifts are much more likely to solve these issues. Everything that can be invented has already been invented. Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. patent office, 1899
The "gas crunch" is of our own doing. We don't allow drilling in most areas, while other countries has less restrictive laws. We are legislating ourselves into high energy costs. It is this sort of naivete from you that I have to blame on a lack of life experience/intellectual curiousity. Most people I know here in the sticks of Tualatin don't work in Portland. I'm not sure what your point is. I know. It's the 1850s, and trains are the wave of the future. History does repeat itself. I don't see anybody advocating this stance. We can improve on existing freeways, though. For example, 205-South expanded lanes, and what used to be an hour commute is almost cut in half. People have seen what result? More lanes + less people working = a smooth commute. At least we have a rad way to go to Blazer games, though.
