[sizzzzlerz]

Around Thanksgiving, I drove through Portland on my way up to Washington and then back to Cali. Even with the roads dry and snow-free, traffic was a frickin' nightmare. Even so, Portlanders should feel good that traffic there is still better than driving through Seattle.

[rootusrootus]

About fifty years ago, when building out new freeways was a thing, Portland revolted and stopped building new roads. We haven't built anything meaningful since completing I205 in the 80s. But the city continues to grow. Traffic sucks because the local government has bet the future on light rail.

[lotsofpulp]

> Traffic sucks because the local government has bet the future on light rail.

In a place with consistent high population growth like Portland, induced demand would create congestion on 2, 3, 5, or even 10 lanes of road.

Investing in modes of transport where each person requires less space is the only way to have both population growth and not look like Houston or Dallas or Atlanta.

[stevenbedrick]

As context for non-Portlanders, the "revolt" against additional freeways was one part of a larger effort to manage urban growth so as to avoid endless sprawl and preserve the agricultural landscape surrounding the metro area. One of the freeways that the city specifically opted out of building fifty years ago would have taken up the entire west side of the city's waterfront; because we _don't_ have a freeway running there, we instead have a beautiful park that is one of the city's gems and that provides space for music festivals, etc. right in the downtown core. Instead of strip malls and condos running all the way to the ocean in one direction and Mt. Hood in the other, the area surrounding the city is home to a whole series of vibrant agricultural industries (wine, various fruits, etc.).

Like anything else, it's about tradeoffs. This series of planning decisions had a ton of downstream consequences, both positive and negative (and I'm happy to enumerate plenty of examples of either). I certainly don't enjoy the amount of traffic that has come with the city's growth --- I'm a lifelong Portlander, and have watched it happen --- but I firmly believe that more freeways would not solve the problem. Induced demand is a thing, and there is also geography to contend with. For example, one of the biggest traffic choke points is the freeway coming in to downtown from the western part of the metro area; since the 80s, there have been several major (one might even say "meaningful") projects that have widened it about as far as it is possible to go, but at this point there's literally nowhere else to put another lane. Of course, part of why it's a choke point is that after the tunnel it immediately intersects with another ill-sited freeway --- one of the last ones built before our "revolt," and one whose siting and construction caused logistical problems that the city is still dealing with, fifty years later.

Anyway, it's complicated, but the local government "betting the future on light rail" is not the reason traffic has gotten as bad as it has. Population explosion, geography, and seventy-odd years of path-dependent decisions about freeway placement and urban planning are the reasons.

[rootusrootus]

I'd much rather see a really robust network of buses than another light rail expansion. It's not convenient to get to the train, and it crawls through downtown at an average pace of 17 mph. I live all of 20 minutes from downtown (by car), and even then it would take me as long as 60 minutes during the day to catch the nearest bus, and then 30+ minutes to make it downtown (and that assumes the connections work flawlessly). It's not practical to use the bus here except for people who live and work in relatively close proximity, in certain areas of town.

I personally believe that part of the problem is Portland's style of government. There's a pretty good reason why it's the largest city in the US governed by committee. Though to be fair that may not really explain the whole problem. Just trying to design a replacement bridge across the Columbia cost 175 million without ever doing anything. Dysfunctional is an understatement for Oregon.

[stevenbedrick]

I have zero disagreement with you, there- I would personally much rather see a dramatically-expanded bus service than another light rail expansion, or at the very least increased service on the existing lines. In its current state, you are correct in that there are large parts of the metro area where it's just not a practical choice, and that's something that needs to change. I am lucky enough to live and work along one of the transit corridors where TriMet's bus service _does_ make sense, but it's definitely not viable in much of the metro area.

And yeah, "dysfunctional" only begins to describe the Columbia bridge debacle. But I will say, in defense of the project and its staff: that was a spectacularly challenging problem to solve. One of those fractal problems, where the more closely you look at it, the more complex it gets. The physical challenges were already going to be hard enough, and then the twelve-dimensional politics of the situation made it even more so. I don't pretend to know what the best solution would even be, but like everybody else in town I was disappointed to see it blow up after so much had been invested in it.

[selimthegrim]

Oracle hiring random college graduates with a pulse to manage devs for the state healthcare exchange was an eye opener

[stevenbedrick]

Agreed. I was genuinely shocked by that whole saga...

[selimthegrim]

I only found out because I actually met one in person on a date who insisted you didn't need any IT or coding experience to manage developers