At an advisory committee Tuesday morning, the Port of Portland fleshed out plans for big changes to the intersection of NE 82nd Way and Airport Way.
As I reported last week, the Port is moving forward on a project to relieve congestion at the busy intersection that feeds directly into Portland Airport terminals. At their meeting today, Port Aviation Planner Mike Coleman shared more details about the project and fielded a question about why the Port will invest over $100 million for a car-focused project when there’s a light rail line that goes directly to the terminal.
Coleman said Airport Way is the busiest surface street in the state of Oregon with 60,000 car users passing through it each day. The intersection handles airport traffic and regional traffic headed to and from the I-205 bridge. Currently there are 13 general travel lanes entering the intersection, as well as two tracks of MAX light rail vehicles. This leads to long signal wait times, made even longer because of the eight MAX trains that rumble by each hour (something that “interrupts the operation of the intersection,” Coleman said).
Coleman said the Port isn’t planning to expand the width of the roadways or add any more lanes. Instead, their design reduces the number of traffic movements that require separate signal phases . Their solution creates a flyover on Airport Way for eastbound (toward Cascade Station/I-205) drivers to avoid the signal altogether. Westbound (toward the airport) drivers would also avoid a signal by having two through lanes without facing cross-traffic. The two left turn lanes that come from 82nd Way would be separated as they join the westbound lanes on Airport Way and there would be no need for merging. People who want to use 82nd Way would turn under the overpass.
“So really, lane-wise, nothing changes,” Coleman said at today’s committee meeting. “We just move some of those conflicting movements out of the intersection. So no additional lanes, and yet a snappier, single operation.”
Coleman also claimed new design would make crossing Airport Way easier for people walking and biking. Non-drivers would still need to cross nine lanes (plus the two MAX tracks) to reach the Airport Way frontage road, but that’s two less than today’s crossing. And the new design would mean walkers and bikers would face only one lane of eastbound car traffic instead of four. Put another way, if you want to get to the frontage road from NE 82nd Way today, the crossing currently consists of six different segments — a slip-lane, then the MAX tracks, then three eastbound lanes, then two westbound turn lanes, then three more westbound lanes, then the two lanes of the frontage road. The new design removes one of those segments.
Coleman said the new crossing will be a, “Much safer, much simpler approach to pedestrian and bicycle access at the interchange.”
For a project estimated to cost well over $100 million and that’s being pitched as a safety project (more on that below) that type of crossing still leaves something to be desired for folks who aren’t driving. Non-drivers will cross underneath a short tunnel, creating possible public safety concerns. And it remains unclear what type of crossing walkers and bikers will have. Will they be flashing beacons or full signals? Will the detection be responsive?
During his presentation Tuesday, Coleman said no new lanes are in the plans at the moment. But the Port understands width exists for adding more in the future. Speaking about the two westbound lanes and generous shoulder width, Coleman said, “Early on, I’m confident that this could actually be done with only two through lanes, but three lanes would be available in the future.”
After Coleman’s presentation, another member of the committee questioned the intent of the project, saying he felt it was being designed to allow more driving. “$100 million for a project that facilitates more cars coming to the airport when we have a light rail system that connects directly to it? I think funds could be better spent,” the commenter said.
Coleman responded by saying typical trip generation rules don’t apply to the airport and he believes induced demand is “less likely.” Coleman pushed backed at the notion the project was about increasing capacity for drivers. “This is a multi-category project. I’d say it’s safety-oriented; it’s delay-reducing.”
The Port’s Chief Aviation Officer Dan Pippenger backed up Coleman. “Many of our passengers don’t have access to the light rail system. They’re coming from outside of it.” Pippenger then said backups on the road can be “pretty rough” during peak times and “We just want to get [those drivers] through and out.”
“You know, we’re still a car-based economy,” Pippinger added. “And what we can get out of it, we can maybe foresee those reductions that we would all like to see in emissions and things of that nature.”
So far, the Port has completed preliminary design work and is confident they have a buildable project. The design will be finalized in the coming year and they hope to break ground in 2027.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
Pippenger is right: The MAX just doesn’t work for most people going to PDX. Heck – it hardly even works for people in Portland itself. A Trimet journey from SW Portland to PDX takes over 90 minutes at the best of times but only around 30 minutes by car. If you have an early morning flight, Trimet buses don’t run early enough to get you to the MAX.
I hate the idea of spending $100M to make driving to PDX easier and wish it could be spent on an express train to the airport. But that $100M wouldn’t even buy a mile of track and it would need to come from another pot of money etc. We have sunk so much money into car-based infra that almost nothing else we try even makes a dent.
One thing Coleman mentioned is that the MAX needs to run 24 hrs a day to the airport to fully realize its potential. He said it’s missing a ton of riders due to its limited service hours.
Max would need to run more hours, and so would the bus service feeding into the Max. It would be a very expensive proposition to serve the relatively small number of people with early flights who would use the service (and perhaps some employees). This during the off-off-off peak late night/early morning hours when the roads have tons of excess capacity and driving is at its easiest.
Even with all that, it would still take 3x as long to get from SW to the airport by transit.
I dunno, lots of systems around the world run not-24/7 and get a lot of ridership. The hours it’s not running are ~1a-5a, hardly the busiest in a day. Using those hours for other rings–namely maintenance–is a lot more important to ensure that the hours it is running can go smoothly. I’m fairly certain that low frequency/long travel times are more of a deterrent for most people.
I don’t disagree – the MAX to the airport is only really useful if you’re traveling to/from downtown, or one of the stops between the airport and downtown. Yes, one can transfer from the bus at various transit centers, but with 15 minute frequencies on the red line the transfer penalty is just too great.
To really make it useful to passengers and employees going to the rest of Portland, they need to at least double the frequency on the red line or create a new line between the airport and one of the other branches (i.e. to Clackamas TC, Gresham or Expo Center). That would then create the frequency where people are on average only waiting a few minutes for their bus > MAX transfer.
I don’t see the issue. After all, the only two groups that matter to Portland’s leaders are 1) tourists and 2) homeless. The rest of us can pound sand (and pay taxes).
Current number of Trimet bus lines going to the airport: 0
I’m not sure how this would work. Say you had a bus-to-the-airport route in all 5 (6?) “quadrants” of the city. In order to be effective, they’d need to make a relatively hasty route to PDX. So people would probably get to them by transferring from a different bus line. For most quadrants, you’ll probably have to pass though the Rose Quarter or Lloyd Center(ish) areas, and at that point you might as well jump on the MAX
Wasn’t there a time when both the #12 bus and MAX served the airport?
I don’t know. But if you’re taking a bus from an arbitrary location in Trimet’s service area to get to the #12, you can probably get to the red line just as fast.
The 12 served the airport in the pre Red Line days
I would start with the 72 bus on 82nd Ave. The proposed new terminus is in Cully across the street from some giant piles of dirt. The airport would be a much better terminus.
There is no policy benefit to the decision. It’s just convenient for the people who run Trimet and run the airport.
Lots of people come to PDX from outside the immediate community and making their experience smooth and efficient is a worthwhile goal. They can’t just jump on the Max, walk or ride their bike to the airport. Portland needs all the positive economic activity it can get right now…this seems like a step in the right direction. Keeping the status quo just to stymie vehicle use seems like a poor strategy.
Off topic sort of but… does anyone know if there are small lockers available if one rides to the airport? I was going to ride a few months ago but then I wasn’t sure what to do with my helmet, pump, tools, lights etc. so I had someone drop me off.
I asked inside but the question just seemed out of left field to them and they indicated there were not lockers available.
I’m almost positive there are not; security and all that.
The answer is sort of no- PDX does not provide low-cost lockers. A private company called Stashers provides luggage storage for somewhere between $6 and $15 per day (different spots state different prices) which is pretty outrageous.
When I bike to PDX, I just pack my gear with me. Once TSA took a look at my multitool but were satisfied when they found it was not a drill.
This is a huge waste of resources for a nonissue. Car travel to and from the airport is fine.
The ram is comically steep as well. People are going to go airborne on this thing.
Also, they’re spending $100 million and it doesn’t even eliminate the at-grade MAX crossing point at the intersection? Elevating 82nd itself would be a better solution if we want to give this intersection freeway vibes.
PDX serves a large region, not just the city. What PDX really needs is the main Portland Amtrak station within and directly under the main terminal, with trains running under the Columbia Sough and River. PDX to PDX.
You know you can already go PDX to PDX on the red line MAX, right?
He wants to make the trip by rail.
What are those things that MAX trains run on?
I live fairly close to the airport so it’s the most frequent place I drive as it’s convenient for friends and family. Whether I’m taking 82nd or 205 the light at 82nd and Airport Way has almost no impact on my commute compared to all the traffic trying to cut through the city on 82nd or take 205 into Washington. Heck I’ll frequently wait longer getting onto the freeway at Glisan than I’ll wait at 82nd. It at most adds 1 to 2 minutes to my commute and that’s if I have to wait for the full light. It’s really a non issue.
Everyone is talking about the airport servicing people outside of Portland but I’m sure the light at 82nd has even less of an impact on their overall commute than it does for someone living 15 minutes down the road like myself.
Wow, an overpass? No wonder it’s 9 figures (make no mistake, the cost will probably double during development). And a significant downgrade to what was already a troubled crossing for those of us who bike to pdx. How about a flyover from the Embassy Suites to the frontage? I’d swoon and then die of surprise if that ever got built.
I live by the airport and because of that I end up taking friends/family to/from the airport a couple of times a month at random hours.
I don’t understand the traffic issues, it’s always been fine for me.
Feels like there’s no shortage of better things we could do with one hundred million dollars!
What could one hundred million dollars do to change SW Barbur or East 82nd Avenue? That kind of money could put power lines underground which means great street trees could be planted.
Good idea, campers need firewood.
A project to make it easier to travel in the least efficient mode of ground travel (cars) to get to the most polluting mode of overall travel (aircraft). High speed rail when? We are running out of time. 2024 was the hottest year on record.
*Least efficient on some metrics. Most efficient on others, like time, comfort, ease of traveling with luggage, and, for visitors, comprehendability/directness.
Reminder: this is an agency that spends over a half-million dollars on its director’s salary. They spend billions and don’t blink an eye.
It’s so sad that this project is what hundred(s) of millions of our tax dollars are being used for, when hundreds of Oregonians die in traffic each year. Our roads aren’t safe because we’re doing projects like this.
Never had a problem with congestion at the airport; there’s no evidence in this article of significant congestion.
I think this project is not needed, but it’s misleading to frame it as wasteful of taxpayer dollars. The airport is self-funding through fees charged to airlines and passengers, and that money has to be spent on airport related expenses. I’m not 100% sure this project falls under that, but I think it’s probable that it does.
If we look at only roads that the Port reasonably would be improving, this probably isn’t the highest priority (improving safety around Lombard/Columbia comes to mind – the overpass of the railway around there is definitely sketchy to ride). But in the very narrow scope of “Port roads that airport funds can be spent on”, this intersection isn’t the worst choice. But I do think improving safety/traffic around the cell phone lot area should be a way higher priority (82nd/Air Cargo Way). Maybe moving the lot to be somewhere that doesn’t require people to use this intersection at 82nd at all! I’ve walked to the airport and 82nd/Air Cargo is definitely horrible to use as a pedestrian (I also hate using it as a driver)
Is it silly that the FAA prevents airport funds from being used on non-airport projects by authorities that run airports? There’s certainly an argument for it. But changing that would not mean the Port would be spending this $100M on making Barbur or Powell safe to ride a bike or walk.
$100 million is truly astronomical for a single overpass. For reference, ODOT has been spending around $1,000/sf on recent bridge projects (Umpqua bridge (2022), Three Mile Lane (2024)). This is a ~10,000 sf bridge. If costs were in line with average ODOT bridge costs, it would cost $10 million.That is probably more or less what the bridge itself costs. Maybe $20 million with approach abutments. The rest must be traffic control, temporary alignments, property acquisition, relocation of the frontage road, etc–though how that adds up to these kinds of costs is beyond me.
Here’s a better idea. Build the at-grade inbound bypass. That will be cheap and will benefit travelers who are actually on a schedule. But drop the silly bridge for vehicles exiting the airport. If backups there are still a concern, eliminate the left-turn motion from EB Airport Way to SB 82nd. A turnaround can be added at the parking garage exits to accommodate the motion, and/or vehicles can just use the interchanges at Mt Hood Ave or I-205.
I think this is a great option, but they probably would need to site the cell phone waiting lot elsewhere (since it requires a left from EB airport to SB 82nd). They should do that anyways, since it’s in a place that obviously constrains this intersection!
What if they put the money towards building an “airport commuter” parking garage at Gateway Transit Center? Then run the MAX red line from there to the airport all night, and/or have bus service. Seems like a good way to make it easy for people to get to the airport, while using and encouraging public transit, and reducing traffic at the airport. It really is great just getting off the MAX and being at the airport.
What problem would a parking structure at Gateway solve? That seems to be simply an ever more distant long-term parking lot, except even less convenient, so it would have to be cheaper.
And it’s possible now that we have the Better Red improvements at Gateway. We could double the service levels between Gateway and PDX. Park and Ride at Gateway, Uber/passenger drop off space at Parkrose TC.
The biggest issue with congestion at PDX is the terminal loop itself. The light at 82nd is basically a non issue.
I would rather more housing get built at Gateway.
My rationale for always taking the MAX to/from the airport is that on days I’m flying, I haven’t scheduled other things; the flight to wherever is the thing I have to do that day. Ergo, that it takes ~1.25 hours to get from Beaverton/Cedar Hills is mostly irrelevant. Pair that with the fact that a round trip is $5.60 and parking is a minimum of $15 dollars a day, and it’s the easiest choice to make.
However, the fact that the MAX is so much slower than driving is a problem. Frequency can more or less be addressed without major changes: buy more trains/hire more drivers. The fact that it’s so slow needs a tunnel through downtown/signaling upgrades/higher average speeds is a more expensive proposition (certainly >$100M), but one that the city should be looking into if it ever wants MAX to really matter.
A lot of people say this, but I always assumed that Max had signal priority. Does it actually spend a lot of time waiting for vehicles and traffic lights? Would a tunnel actually help that much absent other upgrades like reducing stops (which could be done without a tunnel)?
I have spent an hour on the subway from JFK into NYC. I have also spent 45 minutes just in LAX when trying to get to or from a particular terminal by motor vehicle. So the idea that drivers “deserve” to drive to the airport to get their quickly presumes that motor vehicles are the norm and that motor vehicle traffic doesn’t slow anyone down. Neither of these is inherently true. Especially not when our measure of “success” as a city is increased population growth and increased tourism (neither of which is inherently a measure of “success” for an urban environment, either).
**** this boondoggle. We should be discouraging air travel, not making it easier for people to drive their greenhouse-gas pollution-spewing mega-SUVs in order to fly climate-destroying jets.
Oh no, I totally agree with this.
I am going to Eastern Europe next week because I like to expose myself to other
cultures. I suppose I could take a boat or something or just stay home and read about other countries and political systems and then pretend I am a socialist or whatever you do on the internet, but
I prefer to fly there and actually experience other countries culture.
Sorry for living in the real world, you can stay in your basement.
I’ve never been stuck in traffic going to the airport. It’s always fast. Want to see pain, look at car traffic going to LAX. It’s horrible because they built the entire environment for personal cars. They even deprioritize car shares and taxis to some out of the way parking lot near Inglewood only accessible by a shuttle bus. All in the name of the personal vehicle
In isolation, I think the project has some merit. However, in the context of Federal, State, and local budget issues, $100 is a TON of money to spend to fix a relatively low-impact problem. I can think about a bunch of other projects that would have much greater ROI for the taxpayer at large.
I don’t blame the Port for advocating for its own interests, but, to the extent that this project would use public funds, I think it would be a waste of our money.