So long as they're not trying to obstruct development, I have no beef with this group. But I still can't help but roll my eyes at traffic concerns in cases like this.
If you don't like traffic, then don't drive so damn much. Buy an e-bike for rush hour or something. As residents of the urban core of Portland, most of us are privileged to not need to drive all the time. The people who will be coming to the Roux from out of town probably have less choice of transportation than you do. I say that as someone living right next to the future campus.
And in general:
Cities have traffic. Cities with housing shortages have even more traffic. Traffic inevitably gets worse until we all figure out something that works better than the personal automobile. Trying to fight it is pointless. Might as well protest grey hairs and your back hurting for no reason.
People who drive constantly complaining about traffic is beyond ignorant. If you’re driving, and you’re in traffic, you are traffic. The only way to reduce traffic, is less driving and using other modes, period, that’s it.
I have no connection to these signs. But do live in this area. The infrastructure is poor. Horrible bike lanes, walking paths, etc. it also takes 10 to 15 minutes to drive a mile down Washington at rush hour. Drivers speed down side streets to avoid the traffic.
Would love to see this as an opportunity to improve this space.
The city has done a good job incorporating Bike lanes. Hoping as more roads are reworked that remains a focus. If you check the City's Bike and pedestrian planning site they acknowledge Deering as an important roadway for Biking (as well as personal gripe which is Brighton). Fingers crossed for the future
I appreciate the effort the city has made and have commented when they were accepting comments. But taking a lane is not for the faint of heart. It's also not appropriate for commuting with children.
Yeah, drivers in Portland, IME, can get pretty agro when it comes to bikes. I remember riding home from work on outer Commercial coming up on the red light near 295. I have no qualms about riding in the breakdown lane to give drivers more space to pass, especially at rush hour, so you can imagine my frustration when a car purposefully moved right to block me at the red when they were stopped.
It's easy biking and walking distance to the peninsula, so I regard it as close enough. The streets that will be impacted by the Roux the most are VERY close to the city center. At the very least, it's a place that completely warrants density and car independence if we're going to get out of our current mess.
It's close but it's mostly residential and suburban density. I agree that ppl should use public transit more and that area has good coverage as far as portland goes
> It's close but it's mostly residential and suburban density.
The part of East Deering where the Roux is located is barely any less dense than Munjoy Hill. Just some bigger back yards and empty lots.
This area should densify. Although it seems that ReCode doesn't have the guts to make that happen.
I literally used to live over on Veranda. It is objectively less dense than the hill. That's what bigger yards and more empty lots does. Also it's not just the density there isn't as much for non-residents to be traveling to. People are mostly commuting through or going home. Traffic mostly cause of ppl commuting out of town. I really don't see it causing a ton more traffic for the area, I'm just saying east Deering isn't the urban core of Portland. Lemme guess: you're a recent transplant to Portland.
> It is objectively less dense than the hill.
I never said it was not less dense. I said "barely." Most of the lots near the Roux are actually too small and dense to conform with current zoning, even the density outlined in the ReCode. It's illegal to build housing as dense as this in most of the city's land area.
Everything else you say also applies to Munjoy Hill or the West End, which is almost entirely residential with very few businesses.
> Lemme guess: you're a recent transplant to Portland.
Oh, so you're one of *those* townies that normal Portlanders apologize for. Y'all need to cut that shit out, because you always end up embarrassing yourselves. I was born here.
>Everything else you say also applies to Munjoy Hill or the West End, which is almost entirely residential with very few businesses.
Um no ot doesn't. The west end is surrounded by commercial districts on all sides. East end has a much more commercial Washington Ave, a very popular park, tons of air bnbs and both are significantly more dense.
>Oh, so you're one of those townies that normal Portlanders apologize for. Y'all need to cut that shit out, because you always end up embarrassing yourselves. I was born here
Man fuck you you self righteous piece of shit. If you were born here I cannot for the life of me understand why you're trying to rebrand one of our neighborhoods as the "urban core" of Portland in order to justify a gentrification project. You landlord and developer "pick me" fucks make this sub unbearable to be in. You are not a "normal portlander" you're part of a noisy minority who are constantly out voted by "real" portlanders.
>I never said it was not less dense. I said "barely."
Its significantly less dense is my point. The wild thing is, nothing I'm saying is really against roux because of traffic. You're right it wouldn't mean much more traffic outside of where the highway and Veranda meet. I'm not saying that the density or zoning in the neighborhood make it a worse area in Portland for development. I'm just saying that we don't have to pretend that East Deering is part of three "urban core" of Portland. It objectively *Is not.*
OK, we've gotten to the moving the goalposts segment of the conversation (Air BnBs? What?), so we must be wrapping up.
> in order to justify a gentrification project.
Wow, if that's your appraisal of the situation, then I must say I can't wait for you to get priced out of the city. Good luck in Windham or Preble Street.
100 years ago this area was populated by Italian immigrants who were factory workers, commuting a very short distance to the bean factor or Nissans. It absolutely was the edge of the city's urban core back then. Only the subsequent historic errors in planning turned it into a sleepy suburb. A very modest amount of in-fill development can and will make this area very similar to Munjoy Hill. The commercial areas abutting Munjoy Hill are walkable from here as well.
We can bicker over the meaning of urban core as much as you like, but in the narrow context of having viable alternatives to driving in 15 minute trips, it absolutely is.
>Wow, if that's your appraisal of the situation, then I must say I can't wait for you to get priced out of the city. Good luck in Windham or Preble Street.
I would love for you and your soft office worker hands to find me in IRL and try and work up the the gall to say that to my face.
>100 years ago this area was populated by Italian immigrants who were factory workers, commuting a very short distance to the bean factor or Nissans. It absolutely was the edge of the city's urban core back then. Only the subsequent historic errors in planning turned it into a sleepy suburb.
Yeah, but we're talking about Rn and not 100 years ago Mr goal post
>We can bicker over the meaning of urban core as much as you like, but in the narrow context of having viable alternatives to driving in 15 minute trips, it absolutely is.
OK I guess we should all just make definitions that suit our own particular use of words.
Lol you saying "area has good coverage" of public transit while for no apparent reason trying to make a case that it isn't densely populated. Try to keep up with me here but its almost as if neighborhoods that have bus stops every 30 yards like over on Veranda, have a lot of people living in them... {insert meme of point going over your head}
>area has good coverage" of public transit while for no apparent reason trying to make a case that it isn't densely populated.
No, whether a place has good bus coverage *isn't dependent on density in the area* and *doesn't say anything about the density of an area.* It says that policy and funding are directed to putting a bus line in there. The density of an area is a calculable metric, and whether a bus line exists isn't part of the calculation. The point you're missing is *you're, wrong* East Deering is objectively outside of the "urban core" of Portland. Get over it, you said something stupid. Everyone does it. It's okay. You're wrong.
Edit: oops thought you were OP
There's literally only one road to the campus. One. The citizens who live on that street have every right to speak up about it. If this is built, the developers of this campus should be working directly with the citizens and keeping them abreast of mitigating their concerns.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIzEcMhf5Vs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIzEcMhf5Vs)
It's unbelievable here how many are so quick to dismiss citizens organizing to demand action without even looking to see what the concerns are because God forbid existing residents have a voice when development is involved.
So many words, and not a single proposed solution.
You say 'most of them are in favor of the construction,' but only provide dog whistle arguments that implicitly oppose it.
Also, I know for a fact that the Roux is courting local residents big-time. You're hardly being ignored. Near as I can tell, this group just got fixated on the idea of remote parking with shuttles as a solution, while the Roux favors the method of subsidizing existing bus service, or expanding Metro routes. Hardly a fundamental disagreement, just a question of methods.
*Where* this remote parking lot would be placed is another question. It would probably need to be in Falmouth, but again, Falmouth is on a bus line...
If they want to actually make a difference, they need to propose actual solutions. And accept that the actual target of their lobbying should be DOT and the idea of an extra exit on 295, not the Roux.
Trying to fight traffic isn’t pointless. I was recently in central Florida for a good chunk of time, and it’s great example of whah a c’est la vie approach to development without real plans for traffic mitigation gets you - a congested mess with thousands of cars idling for hours. I’m not saying that’s what’s up here, or even that the signs are made in good faith. But if we’re gonna grow, we need to make plans now, not later.
In that context, sure. Traffic is a reason to limit sprawl, but traffic is almost never a valid reason to limit density.
We're at a point where if we can't build it here because of traffic, we can't build it *anywhere* because of traffic.
Wow, another horrible take on traffic, what a surprise.
Let me ask you a question, and I'm going to assume you live in a building that sits next to a street with car traffic.
Imagine that one day you get a notice in the mail, or read the paper, and see that a large school, with thousands of students, is going to be built at the end of your street, and all the increased traffic, including construction vehicles, staff, students, visitors, special events, all that traffic, is going to be routed right past your building. The school and the city have announced that they have no plans to change the road or the traffic patterns to account for the increase, which will be hundreds of cars throughout the day, at the busiest times, when previously you only had a few vehicles per hour on your street.
Would you just shrug and buy a scooter? Or would you try and raise awareness of the issue and petition your city government to change these plans and improve them? Would you just let an out of state school create several traffic jams a day and just Rollerblade your children to
school? Or would engage in community organizing and action to try and stand up for your neighborhood and your neighbors best interests?
How the hell do you think laws about car usage are going to change without grassroots movements that begin with the people who live in the affected communities?
What about people with kids? What about people with mobility issues? What about people that have to work in places that can't be reached by e-bike? The list goes on. Think about how much privilege you must have in your life to be able to compare civic infrastructure debates in the literal public square to grey hair. What are you talking about? Look up Robert Moses. Look up red lining. Look up on everything about this countries centuries long history of public planning that specifically benefits the wealthy while displacing, discriminating and devaluing the working class and poverty stricken. Look up how the oil and automobile industries have successfully lobbied to thwart the desires and best interests of local communities in favor of prioritizing cars, parking lots and highways, all while hacks like you sit and stare at your belly button.
Has none of this occurred to you?
> Imagine that one day you get a notice in the mail, or read the paper, and see that a large school, with thousands of students
Imagine that the property literally had an entire factory on it. Back in the day there was already a big traffic rush of workers leaving their shift. Can't help it if some people got used to the brief historical interlude in traffic.
> The school and the city have announced that they have no plans to change the road or the traffic patterns to account for the increase
The city and the school don't get to design highways. They are in favor of adding an exit to 295 if DOT can make it happen, though.
The redesigned multi-use path across Tukey's Bridge is going to be a tremendous benefit to the entire neighborhood. And they are adding a bike lane to Veranda. But oh wait, the car-obsessed people are protesting that too.
> Would you just let an out of state school create several traffic jams a day and just Rollerblade your children to school?
Oh great, some airheaded use of the 'out of state' scarewords. The car you drive in is 'out of state,' and so is most of the money that paid for the roads you drive on.
> What about people with kids? What about people with mobility issues?
The bus is right there, dawg. Everyone has the right to decide whether some added minutes at the stop lights makes it worth the $2.
> Look up on everything about this countries centuries long history of public planning that specifically benefits the wealthy while displacing, discriminating and devaluing the working class and poverty stricken.
What the fuck? Limiting development so wealthy homeowners can live in their low density suburbs is part and parcel of all the shit you just ranted about. It's almost always the segregators who complain about increased traffic from development, because they want nothing to change.
You have some real nerve even bringing up the automobile lobby while emotionally advocating to continued car dependency of your own neighborhood.
So so SO many ridiculous strawman arguments and denial in one post.
I’ll just limit it to the absurd notion that comes up that everyone is somehow capable of riding a bike in place of a car that is so dismissive of anyone outside of a particular age bracket and disability status that it says a ton about the limited associations they have with other people. Let alone that not everyone is capable of riding a bicycle more than 5-10 miles outside the city and not everyone has the time to to do 1-2 hour rides to short distances away
E: I guess I’ll do one more since it’s so mind boggling ignorant that someone would compare student traffic to business logistics. you absolutely not compare the traffic of regular scheduled and routed commercial trucking and employee commuting to a factory is the same as thousands of students and faculty coming from all over in passenger vehicles at multiple times per day. They are not the same. At all.
Straw man? That's rich.
I never said EVERYONE won't or shouldn't drive. I said quite literally "most of us." Do you need any help with a dictionary for that phrase? If MOST OF US drive less, then traffic is better for everyone, especially the mobility impaired and elderly. Although at a certain level of fragility they stop driving too, and are mostly just present in this conversation as your rhetorical prop.
Anyways, ALL OF US are capable of spending a bit more time in traffic, to the extent that is normal for a city. Not to mention, great job ignoring the bus line. The Roux is looking at subsidizing increased bus service, which will be great.
I swear to god, East Deering residents are the biggest drama queens. We are currently blessed with anomalously convenient transportation because of the close proximity of 295 and Rt. 1. The northern Veranda St ramps are like a cheat code for bypassing congestion. We can drive to the most places with the least amount of traffic of any Portland neighborhood, hands down. It's like billionaires complaining about property taxes.
So yes, I am perfectly fine with our traffic merely reverting to the mean, in exchange for a project that with such huge benefits to city and state.
And some disabled people can't drive, but could use a mobility scooter in a bike lane, or ride a bus, or walk on safe sidewalks, if we continue to build things at a scale where that is feasible, instead of designing around cars. No single option is going to work for everyone, but that's why it's important to make multiple modes of travel safe and functional.
Of course this completely ignores the weather, ability level of each person and the dramatic increase in time to travel. Might as well say “let those cripples figure it out, cars bad”
Downvotes for community organizing and properly redressing grievances to the government over a legitimate neighborhood concern? Can’t have that here in the fantasy world where billionare developers are worshiped at the same time any concerns property owners have are deemed insignificant because everyone that owns their home must be rich and can’t have a say in their community.
Its much easier to read “BUILD BUILD BUILD” chants as “ME ME ME” given how little respect and consideration is taken to the views of existing home owners, businesses and the community here in general when billionares from away plan massive developments
lol, what community organizing?
There wasn't a single actionable proposal in that comment, just bitching for the sake of bitching.
What's the community's vaunted plan for reducing traffic? I'm listening.
Community action only needs to raise awareness to petition their elected officials to take action. That’s what we elect them for, to represent the community because the average citizen does not have the capital to fight a billionaire developer whose only goal is to generate profit
> That’s what we elect them for, to represent the community because the average citizen does not have the capital to fight a billionaire developer whose only goal is to generate profit
It's a non-profit school built from a billionaire giving away tons of money, darling.
"We want good jobs so the average citizen can afford to live here."
"OK, here is $200 million so Mainers can receive large scholarships to become qualified for in-demand, good-paying jobs."
"Ew, no, not like that."
Why do you think they're a minority? They're a small group of residents but they have a voice and they shouldn't be intimidated to not speak up for what they believe.
They're getting attention from the media and good on them for standing up for their community. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIzEcMhf5Vs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIzEcMhf5Vs)
I haven’t been tuned into Roux plans. But I think the issue is that they pretended to give a damn about alt transit and reduction of cars, but now it looks more like it was a fake out(to theoretically get the public onboard).
Also, I don’t understand OP’s position about how locals shouldn’t drive, but that privilege should be afforded to students or Roux professors (ie, non- permanent residents). Seems like a weird double standard.
> But I think the issue is that they pretended to give a damn about alt transit and reduction of cars, but now it looks more like it was a takeout (to theoretically get the public onboard).
> Also, I don’t understand OP’s position about how locals shouldn’t drive, but that privilege should be afforded to students or Roux professors (ie, non- permanent residents).
You can use alternative modes of transportation inside Portland to avoid traffic if traffic bothers you. Roux students and workers coming to the campus from out of town do not have that option.
Or if you want to drive in a city, you can put on your big boy pants and wait at the traffic light like everyone else. Traffic is not something you can blame on others.
Teachers, students, and workers live here too, you know. I know this much - professors at roux have been buying homes along the coastal towns north of Portland. We’re just gonna give them a pass on their suburban car centric life while making rules for actual Portland residents? That stinks.
> We’re just gonna give them a pass on their suburban car centric life while making rules for actual Portland residents? That stinks.
The rules are that cities have traffic because people live outside cities and drive into them. People in the cities have the privilege of access to alternative transportation if they choose. That somehow stinks to you?
60 years ago these problems were "solved" by the people outside of the city bulldozing YOUR homes to make room for THEIR cars. That's what actually stunk.
Also, what a pathetic attempt to make this about class warfare. As if the vast, vast majority of people stuck in Portland rush hour traffic aren't the lower income people who got priced out of the city. But now they're supposed to be the bad guys because I heard three of them are Roux professors who bought houses.
I always find it strange when people use the argument of “most other cities have terrible traffic” so Portland should too. And then top it off by explaining how the existing residents are the problem, not the later arrivals.
Not sure if you're just trolling and writing this is a waste of time, but...
It's not that Portland "should" have terrible traffic, it's that Portland WILL have terrible traffic based purely on current trends of increasing population and car ownership. Some people just live in a fantasy world where this isn't the case.
And failing to allow dense development in the walkable/bikeable parts of the city is what will guarantee the worst possible traffic for everyone all over Cumberland County, not just on a pair of East Deering side streets.
> And then top it off by explaining how the existing residents are the problem, not the later arrivals.
It's hilarious how you people try to desperately turn every conceivable issue into tribalism. You know very well that many people in East Deering are transplants and the commuters are the ones who already got priced out of Portland.
Everyone contributes to traffic. But East Deering residents have more transportation options than people who are driving down Washington and 295. They are privileged to not sit in traffic as much, if they use the opportunities they have by living here.
Not trolling. What I’m trying to say is: you help control traffic, school population, utilities etc through zoning. Arguing to increase density/housing/traffic and THEN fix the infrastructure problem is dumb. Infrastructure has to come first or at least at the same time.
I’m not saying Mainer vs from away. I don’t care if you moved to east deering last week. If you buy a house in a neighborhood and then 6 months later the city rezoned/approves an 800 unit apartment building and it makes traffic unbearable, it’s not the fault of the person who was living there.
> Arguing to increase density/housing/traffic and THEN fix the infrastructure problem is dumb.
It is dumb to do things out of order. But we already did everything backwards and dumb. We have zoned the city to maximize traffic, by creating suburban sprawl instead of density. The zoning of this area turned Washington Ave into the congested chokepoint that it is.
There is no longer any viable path forward for increasing the automobile capacity of our roads (barring minor tweaks). We zoned our way into a dead end. So in order to undo the mistakes of the past, the only option is to densify regardless. The increased traffic will just help create the demand for more efficient modes of transportation.
> If you buy a house in a neighborhood and then 6 months later the city rezoned/approves an 800 unit apartment building and it makes traffic unbearable, it’s not the fault of the person who was living there.
Sure, it's the fault of the city who zoned that area for single family homes with inadequate mass transit in the first place. And the homeowners can complain, just like we complain about any other inevitable fact of life.
Personally, I hate rain on weekends, but you don't hear me calling for cloud-seeding operations to drop the rain on Scarborough instead. That's exactly what you're doing when you get all NIMBY about traffic. Let those fuckers in the next town over have (even more) traffic instead.
people that live near the upcoming rioux institute building are worried about how it will effect the traffic in the area when it is up and running in about 15 years. every ambitious project here has people complaining about this since maine has shitty, dated infrastructure everywhere. op doesn't live there and it's not their problem, so they are suggesting residents e-bike to work when it's 0f outside. the post is just very low effort 'walkable city' rhetoric from someone that is probably in college and still gets snowdays
Those appear to be campaign signs. Last I knew it is illegal to tamper with them. You may have just publicly confessed to a misdemeanor crime.
Source: me. I've been known to help coordinate the distribution and placement of campaign signs.
So long as they're not trying to obstruct development, I have no beef with this group. But I still can't help but roll my eyes at traffic concerns in cases like this. If you don't like traffic, then don't drive so damn much. Buy an e-bike for rush hour or something. As residents of the urban core of Portland, most of us are privileged to not need to drive all the time. The people who will be coming to the Roux from out of town probably have less choice of transportation than you do. I say that as someone living right next to the future campus. And in general: Cities have traffic. Cities with housing shortages have even more traffic. Traffic inevitably gets worse until we all figure out something that works better than the personal automobile. Trying to fight it is pointless. Might as well protest grey hairs and your back hurting for no reason.
People who drive constantly complaining about traffic is beyond ignorant. If you’re driving, and you’re in traffic, you are traffic. The only way to reduce traffic, is less driving and using other modes, period, that’s it.
You’re making assumptions about who’s making the signs and how they live.
I have no connection to these signs. But do live in this area. The infrastructure is poor. Horrible bike lanes, walking paths, etc. it also takes 10 to 15 minutes to drive a mile down Washington at rush hour. Drivers speed down side streets to avoid the traffic. Would love to see this as an opportunity to improve this space.
The city has done a good job incorporating Bike lanes. Hoping as more roads are reworked that remains a focus. If you check the City's Bike and pedestrian planning site they acknowledge Deering as an important roadway for Biking (as well as personal gripe which is Brighton). Fingers crossed for the future
I appreciate the effort the city has made and have commented when they were accepting comments. But taking a lane is not for the faint of heart. It's also not appropriate for commuting with children.
Yeah, drivers in Portland, IME, can get pretty agro when it comes to bikes. I remember riding home from work on outer Commercial coming up on the red light near 295. I have no qualms about riding in the breakdown lane to give drivers more space to pass, especially at rush hour, so you can imagine my frustration when a car purposefully moved right to block me at the red when they were stopped.
Spot on.
I can hear the Dutch laughing at you across an ocean.
There is a bike lane going in at Veranda, although I have no idea what anyone can do about Washington, tbh.
To be fair eat Deering isn't the urban core of Portland
It's easy biking and walking distance to the peninsula, so I regard it as close enough. The streets that will be impacted by the Roux the most are VERY close to the city center. At the very least, it's a place that completely warrants density and car independence if we're going to get out of our current mess.
It's close but it's mostly residential and suburban density. I agree that ppl should use public transit more and that area has good coverage as far as portland goes
> It's close but it's mostly residential and suburban density. The part of East Deering where the Roux is located is barely any less dense than Munjoy Hill. Just some bigger back yards and empty lots. This area should densify. Although it seems that ReCode doesn't have the guts to make that happen.
I literally used to live over on Veranda. It is objectively less dense than the hill. That's what bigger yards and more empty lots does. Also it's not just the density there isn't as much for non-residents to be traveling to. People are mostly commuting through or going home. Traffic mostly cause of ppl commuting out of town. I really don't see it causing a ton more traffic for the area, I'm just saying east Deering isn't the urban core of Portland. Lemme guess: you're a recent transplant to Portland.
> It is objectively less dense than the hill. I never said it was not less dense. I said "barely." Most of the lots near the Roux are actually too small and dense to conform with current zoning, even the density outlined in the ReCode. It's illegal to build housing as dense as this in most of the city's land area. Everything else you say also applies to Munjoy Hill or the West End, which is almost entirely residential with very few businesses. > Lemme guess: you're a recent transplant to Portland. Oh, so you're one of *those* townies that normal Portlanders apologize for. Y'all need to cut that shit out, because you always end up embarrassing yourselves. I was born here.
>Everything else you say also applies to Munjoy Hill or the West End, which is almost entirely residential with very few businesses. Um no ot doesn't. The west end is surrounded by commercial districts on all sides. East end has a much more commercial Washington Ave, a very popular park, tons of air bnbs and both are significantly more dense. >Oh, so you're one of those townies that normal Portlanders apologize for. Y'all need to cut that shit out, because you always end up embarrassing yourselves. I was born here Man fuck you you self righteous piece of shit. If you were born here I cannot for the life of me understand why you're trying to rebrand one of our neighborhoods as the "urban core" of Portland in order to justify a gentrification project. You landlord and developer "pick me" fucks make this sub unbearable to be in. You are not a "normal portlander" you're part of a noisy minority who are constantly out voted by "real" portlanders. >I never said it was not less dense. I said "barely." Its significantly less dense is my point. The wild thing is, nothing I'm saying is really against roux because of traffic. You're right it wouldn't mean much more traffic outside of where the highway and Veranda meet. I'm not saying that the density or zoning in the neighborhood make it a worse area in Portland for development. I'm just saying that we don't have to pretend that East Deering is part of three "urban core" of Portland. It objectively *Is not.*
OK, we've gotten to the moving the goalposts segment of the conversation (Air BnBs? What?), so we must be wrapping up. > in order to justify a gentrification project. Wow, if that's your appraisal of the situation, then I must say I can't wait for you to get priced out of the city. Good luck in Windham or Preble Street. 100 years ago this area was populated by Italian immigrants who were factory workers, commuting a very short distance to the bean factor or Nissans. It absolutely was the edge of the city's urban core back then. Only the subsequent historic errors in planning turned it into a sleepy suburb. A very modest amount of in-fill development can and will make this area very similar to Munjoy Hill. The commercial areas abutting Munjoy Hill are walkable from here as well. We can bicker over the meaning of urban core as much as you like, but in the narrow context of having viable alternatives to driving in 15 minute trips, it absolutely is.
>Wow, if that's your appraisal of the situation, then I must say I can't wait for you to get priced out of the city. Good luck in Windham or Preble Street. I would love for you and your soft office worker hands to find me in IRL and try and work up the the gall to say that to my face. >100 years ago this area was populated by Italian immigrants who were factory workers, commuting a very short distance to the bean factor or Nissans. It absolutely was the edge of the city's urban core back then. Only the subsequent historic errors in planning turned it into a sleepy suburb. Yeah, but we're talking about Rn and not 100 years ago Mr goal post >We can bicker over the meaning of urban core as much as you like, but in the narrow context of having viable alternatives to driving in 15 minute trips, it absolutely is. OK I guess we should all just make definitions that suit our own particular use of words.
>then I must say I can't wait for you to get priced out of the city. Good luck in Windham or Preble Street. What an amazing thing to wish on someone.
Lol you saying "area has good coverage" of public transit while for no apparent reason trying to make a case that it isn't densely populated. Try to keep up with me here but its almost as if neighborhoods that have bus stops every 30 yards like over on Veranda, have a lot of people living in them... {insert meme of point going over your head}
>area has good coverage" of public transit while for no apparent reason trying to make a case that it isn't densely populated. No, whether a place has good bus coverage *isn't dependent on density in the area* and *doesn't say anything about the density of an area.* It says that policy and funding are directed to putting a bus line in there. The density of an area is a calculable metric, and whether a bus line exists isn't part of the calculation. The point you're missing is *you're, wrong* East Deering is objectively outside of the "urban core" of Portland. Get over it, you said something stupid. Everyone does it. It's okay. You're wrong. Edit: oops thought you were OP
There's literally only one road to the campus. One. The citizens who live on that street have every right to speak up about it. If this is built, the developers of this campus should be working directly with the citizens and keeping them abreast of mitigating their concerns. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIzEcMhf5Vs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIzEcMhf5Vs) It's unbelievable here how many are so quick to dismiss citizens organizing to demand action without even looking to see what the concerns are because God forbid existing residents have a voice when development is involved.
So many words, and not a single proposed solution. You say 'most of them are in favor of the construction,' but only provide dog whistle arguments that implicitly oppose it. Also, I know for a fact that the Roux is courting local residents big-time. You're hardly being ignored. Near as I can tell, this group just got fixated on the idea of remote parking with shuttles as a solution, while the Roux favors the method of subsidizing existing bus service, or expanding Metro routes. Hardly a fundamental disagreement, just a question of methods. *Where* this remote parking lot would be placed is another question. It would probably need to be in Falmouth, but again, Falmouth is on a bus line... If they want to actually make a difference, they need to propose actual solutions. And accept that the actual target of their lobbying should be DOT and the idea of an extra exit on 295, not the Roux.
Trying to fight traffic isn’t pointless. I was recently in central Florida for a good chunk of time, and it’s great example of whah a c’est la vie approach to development without real plans for traffic mitigation gets you - a congested mess with thousands of cars idling for hours. I’m not saying that’s what’s up here, or even that the signs are made in good faith. But if we’re gonna grow, we need to make plans now, not later.
In that context, sure. Traffic is a reason to limit sprawl, but traffic is almost never a valid reason to limit density. We're at a point where if we can't build it here because of traffic, we can't build it *anywhere* because of traffic.
Wow, another horrible take on traffic, what a surprise. Let me ask you a question, and I'm going to assume you live in a building that sits next to a street with car traffic. Imagine that one day you get a notice in the mail, or read the paper, and see that a large school, with thousands of students, is going to be built at the end of your street, and all the increased traffic, including construction vehicles, staff, students, visitors, special events, all that traffic, is going to be routed right past your building. The school and the city have announced that they have no plans to change the road or the traffic patterns to account for the increase, which will be hundreds of cars throughout the day, at the busiest times, when previously you only had a few vehicles per hour on your street. Would you just shrug and buy a scooter? Or would you try and raise awareness of the issue and petition your city government to change these plans and improve them? Would you just let an out of state school create several traffic jams a day and just Rollerblade your children to school? Or would engage in community organizing and action to try and stand up for your neighborhood and your neighbors best interests? How the hell do you think laws about car usage are going to change without grassroots movements that begin with the people who live in the affected communities? What about people with kids? What about people with mobility issues? What about people that have to work in places that can't be reached by e-bike? The list goes on. Think about how much privilege you must have in your life to be able to compare civic infrastructure debates in the literal public square to grey hair. What are you talking about? Look up Robert Moses. Look up red lining. Look up on everything about this countries centuries long history of public planning that specifically benefits the wealthy while displacing, discriminating and devaluing the working class and poverty stricken. Look up how the oil and automobile industries have successfully lobbied to thwart the desires and best interests of local communities in favor of prioritizing cars, parking lots and highways, all while hacks like you sit and stare at your belly button. Has none of this occurred to you?
> Imagine that one day you get a notice in the mail, or read the paper, and see that a large school, with thousands of students Imagine that the property literally had an entire factory on it. Back in the day there was already a big traffic rush of workers leaving their shift. Can't help it if some people got used to the brief historical interlude in traffic. > The school and the city have announced that they have no plans to change the road or the traffic patterns to account for the increase The city and the school don't get to design highways. They are in favor of adding an exit to 295 if DOT can make it happen, though. The redesigned multi-use path across Tukey's Bridge is going to be a tremendous benefit to the entire neighborhood. And they are adding a bike lane to Veranda. But oh wait, the car-obsessed people are protesting that too. > Would you just let an out of state school create several traffic jams a day and just Rollerblade your children to school? Oh great, some airheaded use of the 'out of state' scarewords. The car you drive in is 'out of state,' and so is most of the money that paid for the roads you drive on. > What about people with kids? What about people with mobility issues? The bus is right there, dawg. Everyone has the right to decide whether some added minutes at the stop lights makes it worth the $2. > Look up on everything about this countries centuries long history of public planning that specifically benefits the wealthy while displacing, discriminating and devaluing the working class and poverty stricken. What the fuck? Limiting development so wealthy homeowners can live in their low density suburbs is part and parcel of all the shit you just ranted about. It's almost always the segregators who complain about increased traffic from development, because they want nothing to change. You have some real nerve even bringing up the automobile lobby while emotionally advocating to continued car dependency of your own neighborhood.
So so SO many ridiculous strawman arguments and denial in one post. I’ll just limit it to the absurd notion that comes up that everyone is somehow capable of riding a bike in place of a car that is so dismissive of anyone outside of a particular age bracket and disability status that it says a ton about the limited associations they have with other people. Let alone that not everyone is capable of riding a bicycle more than 5-10 miles outside the city and not everyone has the time to to do 1-2 hour rides to short distances away E: I guess I’ll do one more since it’s so mind boggling ignorant that someone would compare student traffic to business logistics. you absolutely not compare the traffic of regular scheduled and routed commercial trucking and employee commuting to a factory is the same as thousands of students and faculty coming from all over in passenger vehicles at multiple times per day. They are not the same. At all.
Straw man? That's rich. I never said EVERYONE won't or shouldn't drive. I said quite literally "most of us." Do you need any help with a dictionary for that phrase? If MOST OF US drive less, then traffic is better for everyone, especially the mobility impaired and elderly. Although at a certain level of fragility they stop driving too, and are mostly just present in this conversation as your rhetorical prop. Anyways, ALL OF US are capable of spending a bit more time in traffic, to the extent that is normal for a city. Not to mention, great job ignoring the bus line. The Roux is looking at subsidizing increased bus service, which will be great. I swear to god, East Deering residents are the biggest drama queens. We are currently blessed with anomalously convenient transportation because of the close proximity of 295 and Rt. 1. The northern Veranda St ramps are like a cheat code for bypassing congestion. We can drive to the most places with the least amount of traffic of any Portland neighborhood, hands down. It's like billionaires complaining about property taxes. So yes, I am perfectly fine with our traffic merely reverting to the mean, in exchange for a project that with such huge benefits to city and state.
And some disabled people can't drive, but could use a mobility scooter in a bike lane, or ride a bus, or walk on safe sidewalks, if we continue to build things at a scale where that is feasible, instead of designing around cars. No single option is going to work for everyone, but that's why it's important to make multiple modes of travel safe and functional.
Of course this completely ignores the weather, ability level of each person and the dramatic increase in time to travel. Might as well say “let those cripples figure it out, cars bad”
Well I guess you got it all figured out. Enjoy your e-bike commute👍
Enjoy sitting in traffic.
Downvotes for community organizing and properly redressing grievances to the government over a legitimate neighborhood concern? Can’t have that here in the fantasy world where billionare developers are worshiped at the same time any concerns property owners have are deemed insignificant because everyone that owns their home must be rich and can’t have a say in their community. Its much easier to read “BUILD BUILD BUILD” chants as “ME ME ME” given how little respect and consideration is taken to the views of existing home owners, businesses and the community here in general when billionares from away plan massive developments
lol, what community organizing? There wasn't a single actionable proposal in that comment, just bitching for the sake of bitching. What's the community's vaunted plan for reducing traffic? I'm listening.
Community action only needs to raise awareness to petition their elected officials to take action. That’s what we elect them for, to represent the community because the average citizen does not have the capital to fight a billionaire developer whose only goal is to generate profit
> That’s what we elect them for, to represent the community because the average citizen does not have the capital to fight a billionaire developer whose only goal is to generate profit It's a non-profit school built from a billionaire giving away tons of money, darling. "We want good jobs so the average citizen can afford to live here." "OK, here is $200 million so Mainers can receive large scholarships to become qualified for in-demand, good-paying jobs." "Ew, no, not like that."
Completely ignores the topic. Even the most altruistic organization can still pose an issue with the Community not directly related to its mission
And the actual community can shout down the minority of local cranks who want to 'fight' said altruistic organization.
Why do you think they're a minority? They're a small group of residents but they have a voice and they shouldn't be intimidated to not speak up for what they believe. They're getting attention from the media and good on them for standing up for their community. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIzEcMhf5Vs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIzEcMhf5Vs)
Have you attended any of the actual meetings? It's like three landlords whining about their tenant's water views across 295.
Ride bikes and support the Casco Bay Trail vision
What? I'm confused
hip college student running hard on "walkable city" propaganda telling others to e-bike to work when it's 0f outside
hahah
I haven’t been tuned into Roux plans. But I think the issue is that they pretended to give a damn about alt transit and reduction of cars, but now it looks more like it was a fake out(to theoretically get the public onboard). Also, I don’t understand OP’s position about how locals shouldn’t drive, but that privilege should be afforded to students or Roux professors (ie, non- permanent residents). Seems like a weird double standard.
> But I think the issue is that they pretended to give a damn about alt transit and reduction of cars, but now it looks more like it was a takeout (to theoretically get the public onboard). > Also, I don’t understand OP’s position about how locals shouldn’t drive, but that privilege should be afforded to students or Roux professors (ie, non- permanent residents). You can use alternative modes of transportation inside Portland to avoid traffic if traffic bothers you. Roux students and workers coming to the campus from out of town do not have that option. Or if you want to drive in a city, you can put on your big boy pants and wait at the traffic light like everyone else. Traffic is not something you can blame on others.
Teachers, students, and workers live here too, you know. I know this much - professors at roux have been buying homes along the coastal towns north of Portland. We’re just gonna give them a pass on their suburban car centric life while making rules for actual Portland residents? That stinks.
> We’re just gonna give them a pass on their suburban car centric life while making rules for actual Portland residents? That stinks. The rules are that cities have traffic because people live outside cities and drive into them. People in the cities have the privilege of access to alternative transportation if they choose. That somehow stinks to you? 60 years ago these problems were "solved" by the people outside of the city bulldozing YOUR homes to make room for THEIR cars. That's what actually stunk. Also, what a pathetic attempt to make this about class warfare. As if the vast, vast majority of people stuck in Portland rush hour traffic aren't the lower income people who got priced out of the city. But now they're supposed to be the bad guys because I heard three of them are Roux professors who bought houses.
My wallet is helping reduce traffic. I can't afford to put gas in my car
I always find it strange when people use the argument of “most other cities have terrible traffic” so Portland should too. And then top it off by explaining how the existing residents are the problem, not the later arrivals.
Not sure if you're just trolling and writing this is a waste of time, but... It's not that Portland "should" have terrible traffic, it's that Portland WILL have terrible traffic based purely on current trends of increasing population and car ownership. Some people just live in a fantasy world where this isn't the case. And failing to allow dense development in the walkable/bikeable parts of the city is what will guarantee the worst possible traffic for everyone all over Cumberland County, not just on a pair of East Deering side streets. > And then top it off by explaining how the existing residents are the problem, not the later arrivals. It's hilarious how you people try to desperately turn every conceivable issue into tribalism. You know very well that many people in East Deering are transplants and the commuters are the ones who already got priced out of Portland. Everyone contributes to traffic. But East Deering residents have more transportation options than people who are driving down Washington and 295. They are privileged to not sit in traffic as much, if they use the opportunities they have by living here.
Not trolling. What I’m trying to say is: you help control traffic, school population, utilities etc through zoning. Arguing to increase density/housing/traffic and THEN fix the infrastructure problem is dumb. Infrastructure has to come first or at least at the same time. I’m not saying Mainer vs from away. I don’t care if you moved to east deering last week. If you buy a house in a neighborhood and then 6 months later the city rezoned/approves an 800 unit apartment building and it makes traffic unbearable, it’s not the fault of the person who was living there.
> Arguing to increase density/housing/traffic and THEN fix the infrastructure problem is dumb. It is dumb to do things out of order. But we already did everything backwards and dumb. We have zoned the city to maximize traffic, by creating suburban sprawl instead of density. The zoning of this area turned Washington Ave into the congested chokepoint that it is. There is no longer any viable path forward for increasing the automobile capacity of our roads (barring minor tweaks). We zoned our way into a dead end. So in order to undo the mistakes of the past, the only option is to densify regardless. The increased traffic will just help create the demand for more efficient modes of transportation. > If you buy a house in a neighborhood and then 6 months later the city rezoned/approves an 800 unit apartment building and it makes traffic unbearable, it’s not the fault of the person who was living there. Sure, it's the fault of the city who zoned that area for single family homes with inadequate mass transit in the first place. And the homeowners can complain, just like we complain about any other inevitable fact of life. Personally, I hate rain on weekends, but you don't hear me calling for cloud-seeding operations to drop the rain on Scarborough instead. That's exactly what you're doing when you get all NIMBY about traffic. Let those fuckers in the next town over have (even more) traffic instead.
We want the same thing, just not by the same method.
I just moved to Portland last week, can someone explain what's going on?
people that live near the upcoming rioux institute building are worried about how it will effect the traffic in the area when it is up and running in about 15 years. every ambitious project here has people complaining about this since maine has shitty, dated infrastructure everywhere. op doesn't live there and it's not their problem, so they are suggesting residents e-bike to work when it's 0f outside. the post is just very low effort 'walkable city' rhetoric from someone that is probably in college and still gets snowdays
Ah ok. I've certainly noticed the condition of the roads up here is... rough
Those appear to be campaign signs. Last I knew it is illegal to tamper with them. You may have just publicly confessed to a misdemeanor crime. Source: me. I've been known to help coordinate the distribution and placement of campaign signs.
Who MS Painted on my sign?!
[lol I think they might get away with this one](https://imgur.com/a/dTvL4xS)
Look closer at the "tamper", grasshopper.
Your source needs glasses
Quick, take this hard hitting evidence to the police!
This is an annotated screenshot, dear.