Holiday Sale at Western Bikeworks

The Monday Roundup: Plungers, tolls, chop shops, KISS on bikes, and more

Posted by on March 6th, 2017 at 8:02 am

This week’s Monday Roundup is sponsored by Nutcase, the Portland-based company that offers cool bike helmets for everyday riding.

Rolling with KISS: The legendary band has licensed their logo on a line of aero bicycle wheels.

Imagine that: This Daily Mail (UK) reporter has no clue that fines and tickets to bicycle riders are down — not because police are looking the other way — but because more people are riding, thus improving the overall behavioral pool as expected.

Sobering impact of Uber and Lyft: NYC streets are flooded with Uber and Lyft vehicles, eroding transit ridership and clogging streets even more. What a mess. Yet another reason to be skeptical of any “new technology” that puts cars at its center.

Car use = OK. Car abuse = Not OK: Portland economist Joe Cortright strikes an important tone with his latest from CityLab, where he argues that the only thing wrong with our use of cars is that we don’t pay enough for the privilege.

Housing for people, not cars: A promising update to an issue we’ve been covering longer than anyone else: Thanks to Portland’s new Inclusionary Housing rules, a developer of two residential buildings in southeast Portland may leave auto parking out of its plans and opt for affordable housing instead. All to save money.

Car parking is so over: Another fun one from The Connecticut Post: “City planners need to remember human beings come with two legs, not just four tires.”

Plungers FTW: The latest weapon of choice for tactical urbanists in Wichita, Kansas are toilet plungers. Seriously.

Don’t call it the Westside Bypass: The Vice-Chair of the Oregon House Transportation Committee is dreaming of a new freeway on the westside that he’s dubbed the “Northwest Passage.” Good luck Rep. Vial.

War on speeding: Portland isn’t the only place that wants us to slow down in our cars. It’s a nationwide phenomenon.

Open-air chop shop ban: San Francisco is tired of stolen bicycles being parted out, out in the open. They want to ban chop shops (and some people think we should do the same here).

It won’t be automatic: A good article summarizing the hurdles faced by autonomous vehicles in urban areas — and how they will lead to radical shifts in urban planning. (The part about curb space — for loading/unloading — becoming the most valuable part of the street is especially interesting.)

Oregon distractions: Get up to speed on how — and why — the Oregon Legislature is trying to revamp their cell phone use/distracted driving laws.

Intersection of justice: A great example of how environmental and social justice issues intersect with transportation in Milwaukee where three groups are suing the state over a planned highway expansion mega-project.

Idaho stop in California: The sensible change to the law that would allow bicycle operators to roll through stop signs after yielding (when it’s safe), has been proposed in California. I hope Oregon tries this again in the 2019 session.

VW sucks: Volkswagen willfully cheated on emissions tests, and now scientists have calculated the significant public health impacts.

Managing traffic: We don’t have a congestion problem, we have a congestion management problem. As more cities figure this out, you’ll be hearing a lot more about tolls.

NOLA rising: New Orleans has a secret weapon that could see its already sharp rise in cycling take off even more: Tens of thousands of workers who ride (or would ride) to their jobs in the city’s legendary hospitality industry. Oh, and the city is about to make it even easier and safer for them to do so.

— Jonathan Maus: (503) 706-8804, @jonathan_maus on Twitter and jonathan@bikeportland.org

BikePortland is supported by the community (that means you!). Please become a subscriber or make a donation today.

NOTE: We love your comments and work hard to ensure they are productive, considerate, and welcoming of all perspectives. Disagreements are encouraged, but only if done with tact and respect. If you see a mean or inappropriate comment, please contact us and we'll take a look at it right away. Thank you — Jonathan

66 Comments
  • David Hampsten March 6, 2017 at 8:37 am

    Need to correct chop shop link – these two stories have the same link:

    War on speeding: Portland isn’t the only place that wants us to slow down in our cars. It’s a nationwide phenomenon.

    Open-air chop shop ban: San Francisco is tired of stolen bicycles being parted out, out in the open. They want to ban chop shops (and some people think we should do the same here).

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • BradWagon March 6, 2017 at 9:11 am

    I was riding in Scholls area yesterday… Should let Rep. Vial people already use that area like a bypass freeway.

    But seriously, those proposed “Northwest Passage” routes are laughable given existing development, natural terrain, and that they mostly parallel existing highways. Good luck plowing a modern day 205 through westside communities. And there is a reason the only major crossings of the west hills are 26 and Cornelius Pass… Verify inefficient to use this terrain for high volume auto travel. When will we start prioritizing moving people, not cars?

    12-20 Billion… How much more helpful would limited access rail down the center of the highway connecting Salem, Hillsboro, Gresham and the existing those areas have?

    Recommended Thumb up 12

    • Chris I March 6, 2017 at 2:04 pm

      And thousands of demolished houses and businesses. And you’d be looking at 10 billion alone for the tunnel + bridge to get under the Tualatin mountains and over the river(s).

      Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Todd Boulanger March 6, 2017 at 3:59 pm

      If the Western Bypass were to be reality – would it not be labelled as “I-405” and not “I-205”?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • BradWagon March 7, 2017 at 11:15 pm

        No idea about naming convention Todd. Was just using the method with which 205 was constructed as an example to what would have to happen through Sherwood / Tigard / Beaverton / Aloha area in some of the proposed route.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Bjorn March 6, 2017 at 10:28 am

    The BTA turned against Idaho Style decisively under the leadership of Rob Sadowski, hopefully now that he has been fired the next person in charge will take the time to actually examine the issue and understand the history of it in Oregon before making a snap decision to either support or oppose the idea.

    Recommended Thumb up 14

    • wsbob March 6, 2017 at 11:49 am

      “The BTA turned against Idaho Style decisively …” bjorn

      And why did they do that? Not because of sadowsky, but because opposition in Oregon to the idaho stop, was overwhelming. Don’t go and reply about how close the vote for the stop was in the house, because even had it passed the house, it still would have had to pass the senate, and the governor…and the chances of that happening, and becoming law in Oregon? Not so good, I think.

      San Francisco couldn’t even figure out a way to allow people biking in that city on a very popular route for commuting, The Wiggle, to pass through one particular intersection without stopping. Some of the city’s commissioners thought the way to handle that single intersection issue, was to try pass a city/county law that would allow people biking to roll through stop signs throughout the city, and the entire county.The mayor believed that idea would not be in the best interests of the people he serves, and said ‘no’.

      If Portland feels the Idaho Stop, or ‘style’ as you seem to be putting it, thinks allowing people that bike, to roll through stop signs without stopping is such a good idea, maybe city council should consider an effort to pass an ordinance that would allow this within city limits.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Bjorn March 6, 2017 at 4:41 pm

        Bob I know you personally are opposed to it but you are painfully unaware of the actual history much like Rob was. First off it has passed the house in Oregon, it did so by a vote of 46-9 in 2003. Support has historically been strong with the BTA’s membership and they supported the idea and lobbied for it in Salem until Sadowsky came in. He publicly spoke about the idea and was clearly not supportive of the BTA working on it but when he spoke places like on the Sprokette podcast it was also clear that he knew little to nothing about the history of attempting to pass the law in Oregon. I offered to discuss it with him since I was involved in several of the attempts but he declined. It clearly isn’t a slam dunk to pass but as evidenced by bills being introduced in a 11 states over the last decade and being close to passage in several the idea does have a lot of support. Also Idaho continues to prove that there are no safety issues with the law.

        Recommended Thumb up 10

        • wsbob March 6, 2017 at 8:02 pm

          bjorn…thanks for the correction. It passed in the house, but that’s all the further it got, and most likely is all the further it ever will get in Oregon for a long time yet to come. I’m curious why all the reps in the house that voted for the bill, did so, but that they did, doesn’t necessarily confirm that the Idaho Stop is an idea widely supported across Oregon.

          I’d be happy to read thoughts expressed by some of those representatives, particularly those out of the Willamette Valley, as to why they voted as they did.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • wsbob March 7, 2017 at 12:29 am

          “…It clearly isn’t a slam dunk to pass but as evidenced by bills being introduced in a 11 states over the last decade and being close to passage in several the idea does have a lot of support. …’ bjorn

          They talk about the idaho stop, but none of the states you’re saying introduced bills for it, voted it into law in their state. Over an entire decade? Longer really, if Idaho introduced its law earlier than a decade ago. There’s very little support for the Idaho Stop. Legislators might like talking about it, but when it comes to making it law…they manage not to have that happen.

          One of the things Street Trust (formerly the bta…bicycle transportation alliance) realized, I think, about the principle the idaho stop is based on, is how self absorbed were biking enthusiasts interest in that exception to the Stop Sign Law. The exception doesn’t benefit community. It doesn’t benefit people that drive, and it’s questionable whether its benefit to people that bike, is worth the downside of that one occasion when one of them make a mistake, miscalculate about whether traffic is approaching on a street regulated by a stop sign which they’ve decided to roll through, and then find as they proceed on through, they’ve become a victim of a collision.

          Street Trust reincarnated from the bta, has done better by committing to much broader objectives for the purpose of achieving improved livability for neighborhoods and city. That commitment stands to accomplish improvements for biking…as well as for walking, skateboarding, and driving…instead of just biking as the old bta was obliged to commits itself to. Note: this is just what it seems to me that the Street Trust is now about…I’m not speaking for them, and again, what I’ve written about the advocacy group, is not what I’ve read to be their official policy.

          Instead of efforts towards exception to the stop sign law, I’d much rather see the legislature look very closely at, and possibly do something to change the way ODOT evaluates roads and the traffic on them, for determining mile per hour posted speed limits. The 85th percentile, for those familiar with what that refers to, seems not to be a great way to support neighborhood and community livability through the provision of roads whose traffic is managed for safe, efficient and functional travel for a range of travel modes.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Bay Area rider March 7, 2017 at 7:16 am

          We will see what happens with the proposed law change in California this year that would allow bicycle riders to treat a stop sign like a yield sign. The proposal was submitted with bipartisan support with a few co authors. Also proposed is a rewording of the law about where bicycles should ride. The proposal does away with the must ride as far to the right language and instead says bicycles may use the right lane except in the rare case where the lane is wide enough to safely share.

          Recommended Thumb up 4

      • Middle of the Road Guy March 7, 2017 at 8:56 am

        I don’t see why it would not work for cars, as well. Why should I stop at a sign if there are no other cars present?

        Recommended Thumb up 1

        • Dan A March 7, 2017 at 12:18 pm

          You’ve asked before. Did you not like my answer last time? Because of ‘A’ pillars.

          Recommended Thumb up 5

          • Bjorn March 7, 2017 at 4:50 pm

            The first rule of Idaho Style is that you can’t have a conversation about Idaho Style without someone throwing a Red Herring at you.

            Recommended Thumb up 4

        • wsbob March 8, 2017 at 12:39 am

          “I don’t see why it would not work for cars, as well. Why should I stop at a sign if there are no other cars present?” motrg

          Idaho’s exclusive to bike use exception to the stop sign law, would work if it was extended to use of the road with cars too…badly…a fact that is among the reasons I think allowing road users to legally roll through stop signs has never passed into law outside of Idaho.

          Think about this: fifty states in the union, the people of each of them, able as states, to decide to allow people riding bikes in their states, to legally roll through stop signs without stopping; yet in the many years since idaho has had it’s law on the book, no other state has followed suit.

          Some state’s legislators have mulled over bills proposing the idea, but no state has apparently considered the exception’s benefit to people biking, of not having to stop at stop signs, to be worth the disadvantages to all road users, of cancelling some of the important safety margin the stop sign law provides for…and of placing upon people that drive, a greater burden of responsibility for the safety of people riding bikes, if they should happen to make errors of judgment in rolling stop signs.

          So what, if Idaho hasn’t had an increase in collision occurring because of its stop sign law? Again…the law increases the burden of responsibility upon people driving, to look out for people biking, that don’t stop at the stop signs. Is that increased burden worth it? An overwhelming majority of people in every other state except Idaho, apparently don’t think so.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Greg Spencer March 6, 2017 at 10:37 am

    Re: “Turns out, Uber is clogging the streets” The headline of this article made it sound like a take down of ride-sharing services, but the writer actually sees NYC’s congestion problem as a failure of the city’s leadership.

    “… we shouldn’t blame the companies or their customers for adding to traffic woes. Riders are voting with their feet for what they value most: prompt, responsive, reliable and comfortable transportation.”

    The writer goes on to propose several improvements to public transit, starting with more bus lanes, signal priority, all-door boarding, etc. Exactly the sorts of improvements that would make TriMet an attractive alternative to cars in Portland.

    Recommended Thumb up 8

    • GlowBoy March 6, 2017 at 12:08 pm

      “public transit, starting with more bus lanes, signal priority, all-door boarding…”

      In other words, BRT and aBRT.

      Recommended Thumb up 6

  • GlowBoy March 6, 2017 at 12:11 pm

    “(The part about curb space — for loading/unloading — becoming the most valuable part of the street is especially interesting.)”

    All the more reason we’ll need to cut back on – and charge (more) for – curbside parking in commercial districts.

    Recommended Thumb up 5

  • wsbob March 6, 2017 at 12:11 pm

    re; joe cortwright’s article…it raises some things that are worth giving thought to:

    In the U.S. what mode of transportation contributes most to the health of the economy, and at the same time, meets the most important day to day travel needs of this country’s citizens? Is it airlines? Trains? Boats? Rail? Not horses, or bikes either.

    The greatest contributor to economic health, and that meets people’s basic day to day travel needs, has been and continues to be, motor vehicles…specifically, personal cars and trucks. It’s a misnomer to say that in paying for the construction and maintenance of road infrastructure for motor vehicle use, that we’re subsidizing that mode of travel, because we’re not: money spent on construction and maintenance of the country’s road system, is support for the health of the nation’s economy. When people don’t buy cars, other people are out of work. When people don’t have cars to travel with, they can’t get to work.

    Do some people in the U.S. and around the world, use cars for travel when they don’t really need to, taking advantage of travel infrastructure necessary for supporting health of the economy? Of course. Good luck sorting those people out, from those that need use of motor vehicles for purely essential travel needs. And discouraging them from driving. Maybe go after buyers of Ferrari’s and Porsche or any car that doesn’t seat four or more people, and isn’t fully occupied any time it’s on the road and moving.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

    • Chris I March 6, 2017 at 2:10 pm

      A subsidy is still a subsidy. You can make the argument that it is a necessary subsidy, but the language is important. When they start slashing budgets, do we cut the subsidy for housing first, or for highways? If we don’t recognize it as a subsidy, it won’t be on the table.

      Recommended Thumb up 8

      • wsbob March 7, 2017 at 8:37 pm

        “…When they start slashing budgets, do we cut the subsidy for housing first, or for highways?…” chris I

        Money provided by people through their government for basic, essential infrastructure, i.e; roads and highways, is not a subsidy. (At least, I don’t think so, but I’m thinking the question over.) Not to the military or the post office, or the military either. To farmers, to keep them from going broke producing crops, milk, meat: subsidies.

        Money provided by government to prvate businessmen to build low income housing, could be subsidies, I think, as would money to help poor people afford the rent. It’s sad when they become homeless, but the country’s economic health doesn’t live or die depending upon whether or not they have homes to live in. Roads and highways are indispensable…the country has to have them…the recent winter storms we had, when the streets and highways were shut down for a couple days, is a very small indication of what can happen if there aren’t roads.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • q March 13, 2017 at 11:17 pm

          “Money provided by people through their government for basic, essential infrastructure, i.e; roads and highways, is not a subsidy.”

          Maybe not, but building them subsidizes the activity (driving) that they’re built for. So it’s an irrelevant difference.

          Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Greg Spencer March 6, 2017 at 4:36 pm

      Of course it’s a subsidy! The vast majority of roads in the US are built and maintained with public funds and require no fee for use. It’s been that way for so long that people take it as God given and don’t recognize it for what it is. Healthy economies need balanced, sustainable transport systems, not free roads and free parking.

      Recommended Thumb up 7

      • Middle of the Road Guy March 7, 2017 at 8:58 am

        It’s called a public good. We do it as a society for a great many things.

        Recommended Thumb up 3

    • Matt March 6, 2017 at 5:23 pm

      “When people don’t buy bicycles, other people are out of work. When people don’t have bicycles to travel with, they can’t get to work.”

      Fixed that for you.

      Recommended Thumb up 7

      • wsbob March 6, 2017 at 7:51 pm

        You didn’t “…fix it…” for me. Give us your own thoughts…please don’t steal other people’s ideas to make what point it is you have to share.

        You did not explain why you may believe people’s purchase of bikes, and the nation’s provision of road infrastructure for biking is as important to the the U.S. economic health, as people’s purchase of motor vehicles, and the nation’s provision of road infrastructure to drive them on.

        In the U.S., road infrastructure providing for motor vehicle travel and transport, is an essential and major component of U.S. economic health. At this point in the nation’s evolution, provision for motor vehicle travel is not expendable or replaceable by provision for travel by bike.

        Would some people in the U.S. be unable to get to work if they didn’t have road infrastructure to use with bikes? Most likely…but if the 15 percent or so road users that use bikes for travel, weren’t able to get to work because they couldn’t ride, that wouldn’t likely affect the nation’s economic health to near the extent people that drive, not being able to drive to work, would effect the nation’s economic health. And of course…compared to motor vehicles, cost of bikes being so little, doesn’t have much of an effect on economic health either.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

        • Chris I March 7, 2017 at 7:52 am

          We better hope that gas prices never go up, since we are so dependent on a singular mode of transportation, powered by a singular power source. We’re screwed…

          Recommended Thumb up 2

          • wsbob March 7, 2017 at 12:57 pm

            Gas prices will go up. That resource will be depleted someday. There are other energy sources, and there likely will be more with time. Human beings have a knack for adaptability. I’m talking about right now…let’s say a 20-50 year window. Motor vehicles are a major component of the U.S. economy. Bike manufacture, etc represents a fairly big industry, but they aren’t a major component of the U.S. economy.

            Recommended Thumb up 1

            • 9watts March 7, 2017 at 1:22 pm

              “let’s say a 20-50 year window”

              wishful. No one who is paying attention thinks we have five years, never mind 50.

              Recommended Thumb up 2

        • Spiffy March 7, 2017 at 8:23 am

          and you didn’t explain why motor vehicles provide more to the economy… sure, if you focus on this point in our transportation evolution you see people choose motor vehicles… at some point we made lots of other choices…

          you could also say that allowing people to shoot each other to settle their disputes solves the problem created by a bloated justice system, but it’s still not the right choice…

          you’re simply stating that the choice that we’ve decided to make extremely easy is the best choice…

          Matt is saying that the argument can be made for any choice that’s the most popular right now…

          Recommended Thumb up 5

          • Matt March 8, 2017 at 9:02 am

            Actually, what I meant is that I work in a bike shop, and I ride my bike to work every day. But I like your interpretation too.

            Recommended Thumb up 3

          • wsbob March 9, 2017 at 11:26 am

            “…you’re simply stating that the choice that we’ve decided to make extremely easy is the best choice…” spif

            I’m saying that travel by motor vehicle is the major mode of travel people in the U.S. use to meet their daily travel needs, and that their choice in having made this so, has made infrastructure for motor vehicle travel, a fundamental, indispensable component of the country’s economy.

            At this point in the evolution of motor vehicle as primary day to day mode of travel in suburban to urban areas of the nation, maybe capacity for more major road and highway infrastructure has peaked out. Exactly what people that do so, are envisioning when they champion new highway and freeway expansion, I’m not sure about.

            If the logical extreme of their idea is that current highway and freeway widths should increase exponentially, to double, triple, quadruple in efforts to meet the needs of a growing population, and to manage congestion…that idea to me seems like one the public would find unacceptable and impractical.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Pete March 6, 2017 at 9:44 pm

      “The greatest contributor to economic health”

      Yes if you don’t consider net – now factor in public health, productive hours lost to commuters waiting in traffic, and the opportunity cost of all the deficit spending that’s gone into maintaining roadway infrastructure. Without empirical data, I’d wager that networking (and other) technologies had a more profound contribution to our economy in recent decades.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

      • wsbob March 7, 2017 at 12:38 am

        Those are all good points which I readily acknowledge. If U.S. society were to have revolutionary evolution in community design…which in a number of ways, I think would be a great idea…lots of people that do now, wouldn’t have to be using their motor vehicles, which are kind of like an exoskeleton…to meet most or all of their travel needs.

        Nevertheless, motor vehicle travel is what we’ve got right now. Easing away from it as the primary mode of travel, is going to take awhile. For now, the nation has to provide the infrastructure necessary for the mode of travel the majority of road users rely on.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John Liu
    John Liu March 6, 2017 at 12:13 pm

    Bizarre that a kid with a lemonade stand can get in trouble for not having permits http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/08/portland_lemonade_stand_runs_i.html but bike chop shops can operate openly with no problem.

    I don’t know if the problem is liberal guilt, false equivalency, unwillingness to take on anyone with a smidgen of political support, or simply being out of touch with what residents want, but the city government is not effectively governing this city.

    Recommended Thumb up 9

    • oliver March 6, 2017 at 12:25 pm

      I’m absolutely certain that if a bike breaker attempted to set up a booth selling bike parts on the sidewalk during last Thursday, it’d take < 15 minutes to be shut down.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

      • Tom March 6, 2017 at 12:46 pm

        What if the chop shop was for city property, like copper wire, road signs, traffic lights, etc. Would the city need some special new law to be able to adress the issue?

        Recommended Thumb up 3

    • Spiffy March 7, 2017 at 8:26 am

      I’ve never seen a chop-shop stand on the side of the road offering parts or bikes for money… I’ve never been approached while passing such chop-shops and had somebody solicit me to buy parts or bikes…

      a better comparison would be having kids scrounging lemons off the street and creating their lemonade curb-side and then putting it on craigslist for sale…

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • B. Carfree March 6, 2017 at 12:18 pm

    It’s interesting that NOLA began doing its bikey thing in 2010, but all of the increase in bike use happened in 2013. It was flat before, at around 2.4%, and flat after that year, at about 3.4%. I don’t know much about NOLA, but I suspect there is something else going on there. It did have a similar bounce up in 2009 when there was no change in infrastructure going on, but there was a noteworthy change in gasoline prices.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Matt March 6, 2017 at 5:26 pm

      How can you call an increase from 2.4% to 3.4% “flat”? Sure, it’s only a 1% absolute increase, but proportionally it’s a 42% increase.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

      • Paul March 7, 2017 at 5:39 pm

        He’s not calling that flat. He’s saying it was flat before that, and flat after that, with a big sudden increase in the middle.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Phil Richman March 6, 2017 at 12:43 pm

    http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/best-ride-sharing-apps/ If transit agencies want to be honest with themselves, which most do not, they all need to realize ride sharing will not be going away EVER. The hope and beauty of this resides in the fact that in most cases neither will bikesharing EVER. In fact, this will only serve to exacerbate increased congestion and force the societal shift to Vision Zero, where people recognize bicycles as the most efficient mode for the vast majority of trips and prioritize walking/riding over driving a personal automobile. Once this is realized and social acceptance around the use of bicycles becomes as commonplace as motor vehicles our cities will change faster than anyone realizes.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Chris I March 6, 2017 at 2:12 pm

      When do we get to stop calling it “ride-sharing”? These are distributed taxi companies with an App platform.

      Recommended Thumb up 16

      • BB March 9, 2017 at 11:17 am

        It’s like “reality television”. The words are the same but the meaning has changed.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Todd Boulanger March 6, 2017 at 3:56 pm

    As for VW “willfully cheated” on emissions tests – I have been waiting for bike and ped advocacy groups to push for some of the settlement to reflect that these roadway users (along with the poor) have most likely taken to brunt of the diesel “emissions dumping”.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

    • Chris I March 7, 2017 at 7:55 am

      The impact in the U.S. is tiny, all things considered. Diesel trucks and busses are a much bigger problem, especially considering that we have millions of morons driving around in 1/2 or 3/4 ton diesel monster trucks for their daily commute to work.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

  • El Biciclero March 6, 2017 at 4:06 pm

    “Northwest Passage”? NOOOOOOOOoooooo! I’m probably being a NIMBY, but I’d like to know why there is such a demand for this kind of destructive freeway construction through my extended neighborhood. Can no one find jobs to their liking within 30 miles of housing they can afford? If you’re driving from Wilsonville to a job in Vancouver, that sucks, I guess, but can you expect the people who live in between to sacrifice their quality of life for you?

    Recommended Thumb up 8

    • Tim March 6, 2017 at 5:55 pm

      Actually the majority of roads are built with private funds as part of development, but they are still not built with fees levied on vehicles. The cost of constructing local streets are paid through the cost of lots sold along the street, so you pay for your local street with your mortgage and rent. You also pay for “free” parking lots with the cost of goods even if you don’t park. The less you drive the more you subsidize drivers.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Teddy March 6, 2017 at 7:46 pm

      I think my apartment in Tualatin would have to be torn down which is not good.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Middle of the Road Guy March 7, 2017 at 9:02 am

      maybe if the travel between the points was easier, the people living in between wouldn’t have to sacrifice as much.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Chris I March 7, 2017 at 12:32 pm

        Thousands of people would literally lose their homes if this “bypass” were to become a reality. What is your definition of sacrifice?

        Recommended Thumb up 3

        • Middle of the Road Guy March 7, 2017 at 1:44 pm

          I should have clarified. I was referring to El Biciclero’s comment about commuting between Wilsonville and Vancouver. To me, that says I-5.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Chris I March 8, 2017 at 2:24 pm

            It doesn’t matter if we are talking about I-5 or a brand new highway. In order to make ultra-long distance commutes less painful, we would have to massively expand our highway capacity. You can expand I-5 through Portland without demolishing hundreds of homes, and spending tens of billions of dollars.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Spiffy March 7, 2017 at 8:36 am

    Don’t call it the Westside Bypass: I say we close every freeway ramp inside the city and only leave one open where each freeway crosses the city limit… reduce the speed limit inside the city to 20 mph… you’ll likely need a lot of Park & Ride lots near those exits initially as people figure out a better way into the central city… this was the way Eisenhower wanted it when he introduced the interstate highway system… he didn’t mean it to allow direct access within the city, only travel between them…

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Thanks and Thoughts March 7, 2017 at 1:34 pm

    Thanks for the post, very interesting stuff.

    RE “It won’t be automatic”: robobusses are the way to go. Robo cars will just mean a zero occupancy vehicle snarl/sprawl disaster. The government, car companies etc. are heading toward the disaster rather than robobusses.

    RE “Managing Traffic”: Tolls are only the way to go if the the toll covers the total cost of building and maintaining the freeway. Anything less is just a taxpayer subsidy so the rich can pass and shove aside the poor on their way to work. So Boston spent $1 billion for a mile of freeway, LA freeways have cost up to $150 million a mile. That doesn’t include maintenance. There aren’t many people willing to pay the $1,000+ dollars a year it would likely take to significantly reduce their commute times. If there were, the private market would have already built tons of private toll roads.

    Recommended Thumb up 0