I wanted to note that I cut out a LOT of detail and considerations from this video, as I talk A LOT, especially on topics I love like this, and there is a stunning amount of folks who seem to have the same mentality with roundabouts as the typical motorist has toward "just one more lane!", as if they're fix-alls. II really do believe a roundabout (or two as someone from Kiwiland suggested) would only be a "band-aid" on the issues with this mess, and further, would still get far worse with the required densification required by the state and feds once the Town Center is designated around it next year (2025). Everyone is worried most about being inconvenienced and the inevitable backlash from the area and voters, which leads to very conservative "solutions" (band-aids). Furthermore, there is a few people who have seemingly expected me to be a "expert" and make this into a "professional" video, outlining all the specifics, mainly focusing on all the full scale engineering issues like cost, land required to reconstruct, and therefore, of course, each proposed concept for a fix that others suggest or I think of, and to compare them in order to eliminate all but one, while then explaining why I selected it as the finalist. I am not a professional, or a engineer, and I don't have the capacity or will to create videos of that sort. I'm naturally slow at my fastest, hate editing, have the short term memory of boring topics of a goldfish, and my brain does not do math. Math and me is quite literally incompatible. haha. I also lack the editing skills and graphic design abilities to create visual aids and diagrams to help you better visualize and understand concepts I speak about, thus why I just used the polygon tool in Google earth here. I highly recommend if you'd want to see that studied and output in such a video, you reach out to actual dedicated pros like @Streetcraft or the like here on TH-cam to help bring the concepts to life, and do potential cost comparisons. I do love that this video seems to be a hit on the algorithm by small channel standards with zero SEO, and a lot of locals are seeing and possibly sharing it around. I cannot implore you enough to reach out to all the government entities responsible for traffic planning, roads, city planning and development, alongside simple civic outreach, to let them know how badly needed a true long-term fix is to this place, and how many people across the Portland Metro do not just want, but need and demand they finally do something about it. The more of us that do that, the more pressure they'll be under, and the more they'll be forced to actually do something about it and finally address it once and for all. The Roundabout Cult has been heard. Now watch me roast you: th-cam.com/video/4nwE3VzGGrw/w-d-xo.html This video is when I recorded my traversing of this intersection from hell on foot: th-cam.com/video/YcW-VDk4PuI/w-d-xo.html and here is joint stadium district project concept I proposed, where I take time to further explain the major issues with the road network in the region already present and worsening year over year: th-cam.com/video/v7ZYZt9UBF8/w-d-xo.html This is my Urbanism playlist for even more content like this (order is oldest to newest)! th-cam.com/play/PLGaAm37WxTsQKZtkdnofkCr9bBaIGc2sn.html
Yep! It's so bad people cut through the parking lots all the time. I'm not sure if I kept that mention in the video as I don't recall. But that's further proof of how problematic it really is.
I don't blame you for this, but it shows how a dangerous intersection can create unsafe conditions around it when people use a parking lot as a thoroughfare.
I’m very familiar with this intersection, and I must respectfully disagree with your proposed solutions. The optimal approach becomes evident when you analyze the situation comprehensively: a roundabout is the answer. With four or more points of ingress and egress, compounded by a history of high collision and fatality rates, a roundabout offers a proven solution. If you’re seeking a more innovative design, consider a double teardrop or “dog bone” roundabout, as successfully implemented on the Keystone Parkway in Carmel, Indiana. Roundabouts effectively slow traffic, reduce vehicular accidents by approximately 80-90%, and decrease fatalities by more than 90%, all while maintaining high traffic throughput. Unlike signalized intersections, they do not create dead-end streets or diminish the street network’s connectivity. Properly scaled, a roundabout can easily handle a 20,000 vehicles-per-hour traffic volume on the major arterials. We’ve implemented similar designs across Oregon, the learning curve for drivers has proven to be manageable. I would add that the the land impact is also less significant than one might assume-at most, it might require the acquisition of a few parcels, perhaps including the Donut shop or a nearby residence. The trade-offs are minimal compared to the safety, efficiency, and long-term benefits such an improvement would provide.
I get it, but I really still believe that's a band-aid, and also that people are treating roundabouts on this video the same way as all the "adding just one more lane will help!" crowd does. All of the traffic data is also from 2021 with one single exception being from last year, which COVID lockdowns, the 217 widening process, and the westside pipe project all skewing those numbers likely more than many may assume. Given the recorded volumes from then, 14k per each side of Scholls, and around 26K~ for BH in 2021, current rates undoubtedly are going to be 30k+ for the latter, and ~20k for Scholls. Olsen data I think I somehow managed to miss, I likely got distracted looking at other data for TV Hwy (Canyon portion too) and further south portions of Scholls, further west portions of Farmington. You then must account for the inevitable redevelopment of the surrounding lands, which is to be mixed-use high density, and the amount of traffic increase that will cause as well sourced right along the intersection, or in this case, roundabouts. Of course, development on roundabouts isn't actually possible from a logistical standpoint, let alone of a practicality basis. And then the connections to the thoroughfares to access said roundabouts would also be diverted by default to where it would force them to travel east, west,south or north aways before getting to those roads. We also lack any truly high capacity roundabouts not just in Oregon, but anywhere really in the US. At least four lanes, likely 6 would be needed in said roundabout, and the size exponentially increases in order to safely accommodate each added lane of traffic flow. It also makes it more complicated to navigate to be in the correct lane for whichever road you want to access. So I really don't entirely buy into the "roundabouts are always the solution to all problems" notion.
Your proposed solution is not viable. Demolishing 15 private residences to move Oleson Road further east is a nonstarter. It would be much easier to demolish four fast food joints at the intersection and reduce the conflict point there.
As a traffic engineer and former roundabout designer, this is the correct answer. OP’s “band-aid” reply unfortunately does not comport with urban planning and engineering reality. There are too many underground utilities for OP’s large-scale realignment to ever pencil out, not to mention legal access rights of abutting property owners. The idea of straightening out B-H Hwy along SW Boundary St is similarly never going to happen. Just build a roundabout and let people walk, bike, and drive through this intersection at a slightly slower speed that allows everyone to make it home safely.
@@jr98664yt I am always a huge skeptic of anything anyone says, that includes endless research, reviews and data sets from engineers and experts on all topics. Point being, I am very much the same with this here. Could it be true that apparnetly roundabouts literally fix everything, sure, but my god do I refuse to believe it and it is so nonsensical to me. And I didn't go into this with the idea that my proposal would be popular let alone viable. I didn't care if it was viable or likable or not. I simply wanted to spitball a concept that is more how it SHOULD have been built out when they first developed the area, than what would be able to work now, though with only a _SLIGHT_ part being a "what if we did do this now?" And yeah, all the utilities would be forced to be torn out and rebuilt, but that's actually needed anyway throughout the BH corridor, as not only is the main utilities aging bad, there is major drainage issues throughout, and complete reconfiguration and replacement of some portions also should have been done long ago. Therefore, the blank slate is the superior option to right all of the wrongs that happened due to lazy engineers and planners just hand-waving off all concerns and saying "this as it is is completely fine. Don't worry about it. Now where's my paycheck?" Ultimately what I mean by fixing it isn't even the danger level of it. I care about making it make logical sense for all purposes and users, and for the future redevelopment into mixed-use medium density along it, and in the surrounding area, as that will only exacerbate all the problems with it, including heavy congestion and thus, the safety of it for all. Is the safety important? Absolutely, but it isn't the only thing, nor is it my primary focus. Furthermore, I strongly disagree with the notion roundabouts should ever have more than 4 connections on it, which it would have here with Scholls and BH alone. What do you do with Olsen? Allowing it to join as well is egregiously stupid. I know full and well there are many places in the world which have roundabouts and traffic circles with more than 4 connections, but it still furthers my own points against it to allow that. Especially for major thoroughfares, which Scholls, Olsen and BH all are. What would you do with Dogwood? Would you actually connect it into the same roundabout? If so, why? Realistically, I believe that road should be completely cut off from having any connection to such a construction. Just sever the ties permanently, force the residents to instead walk, bike or drive the long way around, or, better yet, have ped/bike paths connecting the ends of Dogwood to the roundabout.
With all the suggestions of roundabouts, I kept picturing the least common kind, being more the bowtie shaped ones, that are oblong rather than actual circles. Still don't believe any kind of roundabouts would be a long-term fix at all, but rather just a band-aid on a ever worsening issue.
Haha, you get it! haha. Seriously, the sheer amount of people commenting who seem to sincerely believe that roundabouts solve absolutely everything is crazy. Roundabouts, the modern "progressive" version of *_"JUST ONE MORE LANE!"_* The Katy Freeway of Roundabouts!
Before it permanently closed, I was working at the Safeway delivery center right by this intersection. One day there were two car accidents there within an hour of each other. I'm not surprised to learn it's the deadliest intersection in Oregon.
I'll add some food for thought: -S. Dogwood: outright cut if off near the assisted living center, separate it into a business plaza and a residential dead-end. >Stephen is close enough where it's a bit more inconvenient, but not too bad. Still, the S. Dogwood does service more people than N. Dogwood. -N. Dogwood: Not any great ways to reroute this, best guess is running Newton through to 75th, but that affects at least 3 properties. >Adding a new southern street between newton and beaverton is still too close to the intersection IMO. Maybe near the boxing club could work though? >Otherwise, just cut this one off, put a basic barrier up, and now the rich people get a longer commute to justify their high property values. -Maybe push West side of Beaverton a bit further North (up) so that there's a clear five way intersection between Beaverton, Scholls and Oleson? (without the slip-lane stuff?) >Still dangerous, but at least you could do it with one light. >The hilly terrain would still need to be landscaped to accommodate this >Upside to this is that there's not a drastic change in properties? The vet clinic and maybe a small chunk of Parr's gets swiped by the road, but not much more? Maybe the diamond shop? There's a huge chunk of empty land north of beaverton on the west side of the intersection. >Triangle of commercial land in the SW side can expand a bit. Maybe run Oleson-Dover-Flower- into a new Road that runs through that wooded patch into 62th? But that would be Hayhurst instead of Raleigh Hills. But also probably has merit with the alpenrose development. If you divert Oleson, you'd want a decent route to both Scholls and Beaverton (in a world where the development happens), which means cutting west from Oleson somewhere into a street that leads to Scholls, and a street headed northeast to reach beaverton.
I'm ADHD myself haha. So I get it! The irony the intersection looks like a ADHD toddler was put on a upper and let loose with the layout and development 🤣 I'm glad you like it and get value out of it, too! I'm considering making a video or two showcasing like, 1 or 2 concepts others have already proposed, one being the roundabouts, the other being a sort of freeway interchange which uhh... Yeah. I think it's obvious why the latter may be the worst idea ever 😆 I'll try to have the video on the Multnomah Village concept to fix that mess, alongside the concept to fix Hillsdale sooner than later, preferably within the next week. Of course, there is a third solution to all of the problems of the intersection in the video, and that is bombs. That'll take care of it quickly. 🙃
Another interesting problem is it's proximity to Fanno Creek and the adjacent wetlands. Some of this area is close to or within the 100 year floodplain, so any plans have to take into consideration environmental impacts and compensatory wetland mitigation (if needed). It's a sloppy mess.
Yep! That's a huge part of the issue with fixing it. The drainage has always been a massive problem, and it being within the floodplains, and built on top of wetland habitat that was filled in, with remaining pieces of it here and there, it makes it much more difficult to make work logistically. It got a minor mention via the possibility of making the current Olsen alignment into a multi use path that could connect to the fanno creek greenway trails and the red electric trails, in my own concept of a potential fix. Everything about it is a logistical nightmare and sloppy mess. One massive screw up. Sitting on it doesn't help anyone or anything, and putting a band-aid on it as a fix doesn't help either in the long haul. Thus, the drastic changes do have to occur in order to truly fix all of the issues and problems, even infrastructure outside of the roadways. The pipes, drainage, electrical, sewer, wastewater, gas and electrical lines would all themselves need to be upgraded, fixed, replaced and reconfigured to accommodate future redevelopment and infill. Fun stuff, isn't it?
Living within a mile of this mess I don't see how this drastic of a change would happen, but I hope that a plan comes along that gains enough support to get approved and implemented. I hope tearing up a half mile worth of housing just to take the curve out of beaverton-hillsdale hwy won't happen, I just don't think the benefit would be worth it. Even the plan you have for Olson would work fine without moving the hwy south 100 ft.
I definitely get why most people would hate and not support such a concept, but there truly isn't any real fix for it if something this big doesn't happen. And that's the fault of never fixing it before the continued to expand it all so much, and develop all along it. Keeping it as is isn't a option that should happen either. I cut out a lot of other ideas I mentioned that I know many would come up with to "fix it", but none of them would do anything except likely make the problems far worse. The most American thing would be to turn it into a freeway interchange type of network. Having two large roundabout would have their own issues, which was a suggestion someone already suggested on this video, and would still require a large amount of space, as well as need sufficient space between them, one for Scholls & BH, the other for BH and Olsen.
just trying to come up with a lower-footprint approach- what if we assume that the two sections of Scholls Ferry can be disconnected? have the southern section of Scholls Ferry turn sharply northward to meet OR-10 at a right angle, and finagle Oleson and the northern section of Scholls Ferry to meet at a similar right angle, as if they were now one road. several businesses and some residential would need to be removed, but far, far less than in your proposal; my rough sketch on Google maps would suggest these two fully distinct intersections would be between 600 and 900 feet apart (depending on the details of the routes, of course). this doesn't have the same pathway creation or make room for densification, but the greatly reduced numbers for residential displacement lower the political risks and raise the chances for this nightmare to actually be removed. the biggest concern in my mind would be a question of how many people would be making a right-left to continue on the roads that currently form Scholls Ferry, but the northern side of it especially seems small enough to manage. this would put the intersection between OR-10 and southern Scholls Ferry just north of where the House of Pipes and Chevron are atm, and the intersection where Oleson and northern Scholls Ferry come together would be between Noodles Restaurant and Dublin Pub, at least as i'm drawing it, so about 800' between these two intersections. with good luck and significant planning you might avoid any residential impacts, but i think there's one apartment complex that would probably be affected by shifting Oleson. several businesses would have to go, with no alternative.
just to add, i'd probably rename the northern Scholls Ferry to Oleson, to minimize confusion for people seeing the roads for the first time; would take some getting used to for locals, but that would be true for literally any changes.
I understand and like the idea of this concept, but god I despise the idea of having a road/thoroughfare like Scholls get severed to where people would need to zig-zag between the intersections just to continue along them either direction. And that in itself would create a major issue with traffic flow and increase dangerous lane changing within a short 800ft window just to pull that off as a driver. It'd also be a pain in the ass as a bicyclist or pedestrian. I actually recorded me sifting through the data for traffic volumes for this area and each of the main roads, and surprisingly, Scholls Ferry sees slightly _MORE_ traffic on the northern side than it does the southern side of the current intersection, somehow. Though worse is, most data was last collected in 2021, with the rare exception of one 2023. So the numbers are royally skewed, given not only COVID numbers during the lock-downs, but also the 2017 widening causing a lot of skewing, as well as the westside pipe project causing more of the same. I've forgotten Olsen's numbers, but it wasn't as straightforward as I wanted it to be, since Oregon has a really weird, illogical road jurisdiction/ownership model, where any city can buy ownership and jurisdiction over a road, even as they enter into other cities or counties, while the counties also own some of the roads, and ODOT itself actually has very little ownership/jurisdiction of them. I had to jump around in the house of pain (heh) between Washington County Roads, City Of Beaverton and Oregon itself just to find all of the data on each of these roads at this point or at least area. I also lack a program necessary to look at the state's excel files for the full detailed data. Of course, a huge part of fixing this intersection mess is making it so that it can support densification as that is inevitable according to the laws relating to the Town Center program the city and county are a part of with the state and feds. A fix isn't a fix if it does not account for the now increased demands put upon it. I do really believe anything other than a drastic change that all people in the region will despise due to their mass displacement is just a band-aid treatment that may TEMPORARILY "fix" or alleviate some of the many issues with it, however. We can't look at it and consider fixes in the current and near-term, as it has to be the long term. Otherwise this will be a never-ending nightmare that always remains as "could have gotten fixed, BUT". The lack of political support, in my case, specifically from voters, is exactly why I noted the state has to do something like this without allowing anyone to vote on it. Rip the band-aid off and get it over with so that we never need to worry about it again.
@@robynkolozsvari River Road > Scholls Ferry > Olsen > Skyline Blvd Lol, that would be the most Portland Metro area thing to do ever. Just keep renaming the damn road every few miles haha.
@@TheCriminalViolin well my concept here is that it would no longer be considered a single road, is the broader purpose of the renaming lol, instead it would be Oleson turning into Skyline and Scholls Ferry would end where it meets Beaverton-Hillsdale
For real! It drives me ballistic just knowing it exists, it's history and that we could have fixed this before it even became a real issue. They really had to be on some kind of hard drugs I feel like to think "yeah, this is fine, this is what I went to school for to get my engineering and planning degree."
It may be different than the other proposals, but could one main intersection of Scholls Ferry, Beaverton Hillsdale, and Oleson work? Yes, it would be a big intersection, but there would not be a short segment with a need to time signals between two intersections. Scholls Ferry would be diverted to the east on the south side of BHH, then approach at closer to 90 degrees than now, and Oleson would bend to the west as it approached from the south. The section of SF north of BHH would be diverted to the east slightly and leveled. Some businesses between Oleson and Scholls Ferry would need to be removed or moved.
I did think about that, but I do not believe it would be a long term solution. And considering those roads together average between 80k & 90k vehicles per day combined through it as it is now, then taking into consideration the redevelopment and infill set to happen in the next 5-10 years along it as well as in the surrounding neighborhoods which would greatly increase the amount of traffic going through it each day, it really would be I think a worse choke point that way than it is now, ironically. It is also a large reason why I made the follow-up on Roundabouts, given how so many people on this video seem to believe one or two would cure all of the issues it currently faces and will face in the next decade. I am happy that you gave a different concept than what most commenters are giving (that is when they give them, which has pretty much been just "ROUNDABOUT"). Someone else suggested freeway like ramps for right hand turns, which was close to one of the typical American engineering and planning options I mocked but then cut out in editing from this video. But that's about the size of it. Lol.
The underpasses would be a issue themselves, as the area has infamous drainage issues, and it also sits atop a filled-in wetland, that itself sits along and within the 100 year flood plain of Fanno Creek. In fact, much of Downtown Beaverton and along the BH corridor has this exact issue. In example for downtown, the two empty plots of land north of the MAX tracks at Beaverton TC are still untouched because of major drainage problems, and flooding issues despite it sitting at or above street level in many parts. They once did attempt to build something on the plot due north of the TC, but quickly found it nonviable and tore it down. That, and Rats. The rats love using the creeks & drains.
Funny enough, apparently some planners and engineers that contracted with Washington County actually have a near identical proposal to fix it as I have here, which someone linked in the comment section. I find it rather hilarious, as it actually solidifies my concept and gives it some real meat to back it up, along with the reasons I stated in this video (and the roundabout video) why what I point out is logical and leads to such a big change that would displace many. It's not just some uneducated non-professional Urbanist dork on TH-cam proposing a horrible, dumb, no-good fix anymore, but actually aligned with some experts in the field of traffic engineering and road planning. The fact so many people are genuinely upset, livid, or scolding me in the comments while insisting one or two roundabouts would fix all of the problems here, including long term only adds to the satisfaction it gives me and the hilarity of it. "Just leave it to the professionals, as you clearly don't know what you're talking about". I guess some professionals also need to leave it to other professionals, then... whoops! haha
@TheCriminalViolin bro are you upset? Didn't need to write a speech. All I said was it could be done within the existing area. I work in the industry and I never mentioned roundabouts. Other solutions are out there, I'm not going to mansplain them as I don't want to fulfill your urges for an argument. I am simply stating that is is possible without displacement. Have a good day 🍻
@@JustinJamesJeep I have no idea where or how you got the impression I am upset or am fracking for a argument, but okay boss. I am simply a very detailed person, so more often than not, my comments and replies are like a dissertation or expose. If that somehow equates to someone being upset, or wanting to argue in your eyes... I don't know what to tell you. Though admittedly if you think my reply to you is long-winded, you have NO IDEA or concept of just how long I usually comment or reply. lol
@@TheCriminalViolin so rather than replying to the meat of my message you've responded to the part about you being upset. Are you able to understand that it is possible to do within the existing area or are you just going to ignore that thought
There looks to be plenty of space to rework those intersections without building new roads though neighborhoods. I ask, what is the intent of your "redesign" improve safety? Add capacity? If it is to improve safety this can be done with the existing sapce. If you want to add capacity I ask why? Maybe space in these roads should be dedicated to bike or bus infrastructure. This is the only real way to add capacity in the same space.
It is many things, but the dominate basis is so that it is logistically sound, making flow efficient, and tied in importance is fixing it properly before all the higher density mixed-use redevelopment and infill transpires. Second priority is then safety, with the third being to add mode share for BRT and increase the pedestrian and bicyclist capacities while improving their own throughput and safety increases. I felt I made all but the latter of my reasons abundantly clear in the video, however, so I am somewhat surprised to get your question here.
@TheCriminalViolin if you have a lot to say, you need to spend *more* time filtering out what's important and structuring your message. I don't care that you remember what the names of all the streets are and can say them quickly while zooming around the map. You need to focus on *goals* and why your proposal fits them best. If you have considered 10 alternatives, either actually explain why each was discarded, or don't mention them at all to reduce confusion and extraneous information.
Lol ngl, this isn't a good plan. You're proposing that they destroy massive amounts of road, uproot trees, bulldoze businesses and buildings, and redevelop probably a few miles worth of new road Instead of a couple roundabouts Did you even factor in cost when you made this?
Nope, because this isn't some "Expert analysis". Someone else already suggested the "correct" way to have made this is "simply" break it down with each concept and proposal one may have, give a summary of their details including cost, and compare each with each other until all but one I eliminate, then explain in detail step by step why I believe my concept is the best. If I was a "expert" or some big name "pro", I would have done exactly that. But I am not. And I guarantee one or two roundabouts won't fix this at all. It may temporarily alleviate some of the problems, but it wouldn't actually be a long term fix. The only long term fix would be something truly drastic that voters would hate and area businesses and residents would despise. But we did this to ourselves, and the longer we wait to actually fix it for good, the more problems will arise, the worse the current ones will get and the more people and businesses will have to be displaced to actually fix the dang thing.
@TheCriminalViolin you're probably right about the second part, although you misunderestimate how effective roundabouts can be, but I do not think your solution is an effective one when it requires tearing down in the double digits of buildings lol. It's not effective and there's probably way better plans using existing infrastructure. I would probably leave it to professionals.
Haha, this kind of dives into one of the possibilities I felt some people would think to do instead to "fix" it that I cut out, which was essentially just tear it up and build a freeway or freeway style interchange in it's place.
@TheCriminalViolin You guys don't tend to use them. They work fine in Europe. It was an interesting video. The real problem is the through traffic. We solved this sort of thing in my home town of Auckland NZ with two massive tunnels. I installed the fire suppression in one of them. A year of working at night.
@@Bob-h3n We do have roundabouts, and they are actually increasing in number too. There is multiple close by to this mess in fact. The largest is at Scholls Ferry and River Road. Another one is being built on Farmington (Beaverton-Hillsdale) and River Road as well, which is similar in size. Also, a smaller one is even closer, located just west of Hall Blvd on Hart. There is also one nearby on top of Cooper Mountain at Kemmer & 175th. Underpasses or tunnels are likely not a viable option at this intersection though, because we have always had horrible drainage problems throughout the corridor.
@@TheCriminalViolin Ground water was a problem for one of the tunnels but it was sorted. It actually came in under budget and was finished early. Not the normal way public works turn out here.
Yep! I was thinking Ostriv, myself. I even mentioned it when recording the video, but opted to cut it out as I went on explaining why people should watch a time-lapse or videos of the game to see how messes like this form in the first place. Very video game-esque horror that we make for shits & giggles.
I wanted to note that I cut out a LOT of detail and considerations from this video, as I talk A LOT, especially on topics I love like this, and there is a stunning amount of folks who seem to have the same mentality with roundabouts as the typical motorist has toward "just one more lane!", as if they're fix-alls. II really do believe a roundabout (or two as someone from Kiwiland suggested) would only be a "band-aid" on the issues with this mess, and further, would still get far worse with the required densification required by the state and feds once the Town Center is designated around it next year (2025). Everyone is worried most about being inconvenienced and the inevitable backlash from the area and voters, which leads to very conservative "solutions" (band-aids).
Furthermore, there is a few people who have seemingly expected me to be a "expert" and make this into a "professional" video, outlining all the specifics, mainly focusing on all the full scale engineering issues like cost, land required to reconstruct, and therefore, of course, each proposed concept for a fix that others suggest or I think of, and to compare them in order to eliminate all but one, while then explaining why I selected it as the finalist. I am not a professional, or a engineer, and I don't have the capacity or will to create videos of that sort. I'm naturally slow at my fastest, hate editing, have the short term memory of boring topics of a goldfish, and my brain does not do math. Math and me is quite literally incompatible. haha. I also lack the editing skills and graphic design abilities to create visual aids and diagrams to help you better visualize and understand concepts I speak about, thus why I just used the polygon tool in Google earth here. I highly recommend if you'd want to see that studied and output in such a video, you reach out to actual dedicated pros like @Streetcraft or the like here on TH-cam to help bring the concepts to life, and do potential cost comparisons.
I do love that this video seems to be a hit on the algorithm by small channel standards with zero SEO, and a lot of locals are seeing and possibly sharing it around. I cannot implore you enough to reach out to all the government entities responsible for traffic planning, roads, city planning and development, alongside simple civic outreach, to let them know how badly needed a true long-term fix is to this place, and how many people across the Portland Metro do not just want, but need and demand they finally do something about it. The more of us that do that, the more pressure they'll be under, and the more they'll be forced to actually do something about it and finally address it once and for all.
The Roundabout Cult has been heard. Now watch me roast you: th-cam.com/video/4nwE3VzGGrw/w-d-xo.html
This video is when I recorded my traversing of this intersection from hell on foot: th-cam.com/video/YcW-VDk4PuI/w-d-xo.html and here is joint stadium district project concept I proposed, where I take time to further explain the major issues with the road network in the region already present and worsening year over year: th-cam.com/video/v7ZYZt9UBF8/w-d-xo.html
This is my Urbanism playlist for even more content like this (order is oldest to newest)! th-cam.com/play/PLGaAm37WxTsQKZtkdnofkCr9bBaIGc2sn.html
I went to high school right next to this monstrosity of an intersection. Would always just cut through the parking lot by sesames
Yep! It's so bad people cut through the parking lots all the time. I'm not sure if I kept that mention in the video as I don't recall. But that's further proof of how problematic it really is.
I don't blame you for this, but it shows how a dangerous intersection can create unsafe conditions around it when people use a parking lot as a thoroughfare.
I’m very familiar with this intersection, and I must respectfully disagree with your proposed solutions. The optimal approach becomes evident when you analyze the situation comprehensively: a roundabout is the answer.
With four or more points of ingress and egress, compounded by a history of high collision and fatality rates, a roundabout offers a proven solution. If you’re seeking a more innovative design, consider a double teardrop or “dog bone” roundabout, as successfully implemented on the Keystone Parkway in Carmel, Indiana.
Roundabouts effectively slow traffic, reduce vehicular accidents by approximately 80-90%, and decrease fatalities by more than 90%, all while maintaining high traffic throughput. Unlike signalized intersections, they do not create dead-end streets or diminish the street network’s connectivity. Properly scaled, a roundabout can easily handle a 20,000 vehicles-per-hour traffic volume on the major arterials.
We’ve implemented similar designs across Oregon, the learning curve for drivers has proven to be manageable. I would add that the the land impact is also less significant than one might assume-at most, it might require the acquisition of a few parcels, perhaps including the Donut shop or a nearby residence. The trade-offs are minimal compared to the safety, efficiency, and long-term benefits such an improvement would provide.
I get it, but I really still believe that's a band-aid, and also that people are treating roundabouts on this video the same way as all the "adding just one more lane will help!" crowd does.
All of the traffic data is also from 2021 with one single exception being from last year, which COVID lockdowns, the 217 widening process, and the westside pipe project all skewing those numbers likely more than many may assume. Given the recorded volumes from then, 14k per each side of Scholls, and around 26K~ for BH in 2021, current rates undoubtedly are going to be 30k+ for the latter, and ~20k for Scholls. Olsen data I think I somehow managed to miss, I likely got distracted looking at other data for TV Hwy (Canyon portion too) and further south portions of Scholls, further west portions of Farmington.
You then must account for the inevitable redevelopment of the surrounding lands, which is to be mixed-use high density, and the amount of traffic increase that will cause as well sourced right along the intersection, or in this case, roundabouts. Of course, development on roundabouts isn't actually possible from a logistical standpoint, let alone of a practicality basis. And then the connections to the thoroughfares to access said roundabouts would also be diverted by default to where it would force them to travel east, west,south or north aways before getting to those roads.
We also lack any truly high capacity roundabouts not just in Oregon, but anywhere really in the US. At least four lanes, likely 6 would be needed in said roundabout, and the size exponentially increases in order to safely accommodate each added lane of traffic flow. It also makes it more complicated to navigate to be in the correct lane for whichever road you want to access.
So I really don't entirely buy into the "roundabouts are always the solution to all problems" notion.
Your proposed solution is not viable. Demolishing 15 private residences to move Oleson Road further east is a nonstarter. It would be much easier to demolish four fast food joints at the intersection and reduce the conflict point there.
As a traffic engineer and former roundabout designer, this is the correct answer. OP’s “band-aid” reply unfortunately does not comport with urban planning and engineering reality.
There are too many underground utilities for OP’s large-scale realignment to ever pencil out, not to mention legal access rights of abutting property owners. The idea of straightening out B-H Hwy along SW Boundary St is similarly never going to happen.
Just build a roundabout and let people walk, bike, and drive through this intersection at a slightly slower speed that allows everyone to make it home safely.
@@RedbookGereute-bs1xg Keeping the intersections so close like that is also not viable even to consider as a option.
@@jr98664yt I am always a huge skeptic of anything anyone says, that includes endless research, reviews and data sets from engineers and experts on all topics. Point being, I am very much the same with this here. Could it be true that apparnetly roundabouts literally fix everything, sure, but my god do I refuse to believe it and it is so nonsensical to me.
And I didn't go into this with the idea that my proposal would be popular let alone viable. I didn't care if it was viable or likable or not. I simply wanted to spitball a concept that is more how it SHOULD have been built out when they first developed the area, than what would be able to work now, though with only a _SLIGHT_ part being a "what if we did do this now?"
And yeah, all the utilities would be forced to be torn out and rebuilt, but that's actually needed anyway throughout the BH corridor, as not only is the main utilities aging bad, there is major drainage issues throughout, and complete reconfiguration and replacement of some portions also should have been done long ago. Therefore, the blank slate is the superior option to right all of the wrongs that happened due to lazy engineers and planners just hand-waving off all concerns and saying "this as it is is completely fine. Don't worry about it. Now where's my paycheck?"
Ultimately what I mean by fixing it isn't even the danger level of it. I care about making it make logical sense for all purposes and users, and for the future redevelopment into mixed-use medium density along it, and in the surrounding area, as that will only exacerbate all the problems with it, including heavy congestion and thus, the safety of it for all. Is the safety important? Absolutely, but it isn't the only thing, nor is it my primary focus.
Furthermore, I strongly disagree with the notion roundabouts should ever have more than 4 connections on it, which it would have here with Scholls and BH alone. What do you do with Olsen? Allowing it to join as well is egregiously stupid. I know full and well there are many places in the world which have roundabouts and traffic circles with more than 4 connections, but it still furthers my own points against it to allow that. Especially for major thoroughfares, which Scholls, Olsen and BH all are. What would you do with Dogwood? Would you actually connect it into the same roundabout? If so, why? Realistically, I believe that road should be completely cut off from having any connection to such a construction. Just sever the ties permanently, force the residents to instead walk, bike or drive the long way around, or, better yet, have ped/bike paths connecting the ends of Dogwood to the roundabout.
@streetcraft should take a look at this intersection 😂
Right?! 😂 Exactly my thoughts about it, especially once I was writing it's description.
Their solution will 100% be a peanut roundabout
Dual-lane bean-shaped roundabout. There solved your problem, thank me later…
With all the suggestions of roundabouts, I kept picturing the least common kind, being more the bowtie shaped ones, that are oblong rather than actual circles. Still don't believe any kind of roundabouts would be a long-term fix at all, but rather just a band-aid on a ever worsening issue.
One word: Roundabout
new largest NA roundabout, 4 block wide, PNW style Burj Khalifa in the middle
Haha, you get it! haha. Seriously, the sheer amount of people commenting who seem to sincerely believe that roundabouts solve absolutely everything is crazy. Roundabouts, the modern "progressive" version of *_"JUST ONE MORE LANE!"_* The Katy Freeway of Roundabouts!
Before it permanently closed, I was working at the Safeway delivery center right by this intersection. One day there were two car accidents there within an hour of each other. I'm not surprised to learn it's the deadliest intersection in Oregon.
I still remember that Safeway. Now imagine a Costco right on the corner there. Haha.
I'll add some food for thought:
-S. Dogwood: outright cut if off near the assisted living center, separate it into a business plaza and a residential dead-end.
>Stephen is close enough where it's a bit more inconvenient, but not too bad. Still, the S. Dogwood does service more people than N. Dogwood.
-N. Dogwood: Not any great ways to reroute this, best guess is running Newton through to 75th, but that affects at least 3 properties.
>Adding a new southern street between newton and beaverton is still too close to the intersection IMO. Maybe near the boxing club could work though?
>Otherwise, just cut this one off, put a basic barrier up, and now the rich people get a longer commute to justify their high property values.
-Maybe push West side of Beaverton a bit further North (up) so that there's a clear five way intersection between Beaverton, Scholls and Oleson? (without the slip-lane stuff?)
>Still dangerous, but at least you could do it with one light.
>The hilly terrain would still need to be landscaped to accommodate this
>Upside to this is that there's not a drastic change in properties? The vet clinic and maybe a small chunk of Parr's gets swiped by the road, but not much more? Maybe the diamond shop? There's a huge chunk of empty land north of beaverton on the west side of the intersection.
>Triangle of commercial land in the SW side can expand a bit.
Maybe run Oleson-Dover-Flower- into a new Road that runs through that wooded patch into 62th? But that would be Hayhurst instead of Raleigh Hills. But also probably has merit with the alpenrose development.
If you divert Oleson, you'd want a decent route to both Scholls and Beaverton (in a world where the development happens), which means cutting west from Oleson somewhere into a street that leads to Scholls, and a street headed northeast to reach beaverton.
love this type of stuff right here! keep going! take requests from people! analyze crashes and pile ups! iono! but ur cookin!
more drawing too! im add!
I'm ADHD myself haha. So I get it! The irony the intersection looks like a ADHD toddler was put on a upper and let loose with the layout and development 🤣
I'm glad you like it and get value out of it, too! I'm considering making a video or two showcasing like, 1 or 2 concepts others have already proposed, one being the roundabouts, the other being a sort of freeway interchange which uhh... Yeah. I think it's obvious why the latter may be the worst idea ever 😆
I'll try to have the video on the Multnomah Village concept to fix that mess, alongside the concept to fix Hillsdale sooner than later, preferably within the next week.
Of course, there is a third solution to all of the problems of the intersection in the video, and that is bombs. That'll take care of it quickly. 🙃
Another interesting problem is it's proximity to Fanno Creek and the adjacent wetlands. Some of this area is close to or within the 100 year floodplain, so any plans have to take into consideration environmental impacts and compensatory wetland mitigation (if needed). It's a sloppy mess.
Yep! That's a huge part of the issue with fixing it. The drainage has always been a massive problem, and it being within the floodplains, and built on top of wetland habitat that was filled in, with remaining pieces of it here and there, it makes it much more difficult to make work logistically. It got a minor mention via the possibility of making the current Olsen alignment into a multi use path that could connect to the fanno creek greenway trails and the red electric trails, in my own concept of a potential fix.
Everything about it is a logistical nightmare and sloppy mess. One massive screw up. Sitting on it doesn't help anyone or anything, and putting a band-aid on it as a fix doesn't help either in the long haul. Thus, the drastic changes do have to occur in order to truly fix all of the issues and problems, even infrastructure outside of the roadways. The pipes, drainage, electrical, sewer, wastewater, gas and electrical lines would all themselves need to be upgraded, fixed, replaced and reconfigured to accommodate future redevelopment and infill.
Fun stuff, isn't it?
I lived next to this, it's a nightmare.
I can't imagine living next to it. It's hell even from afar haha.
Living within a mile of this mess I don't see how this drastic of a change would happen, but I hope that a plan comes along that gains enough support to get approved and implemented. I hope tearing up a half mile worth of housing just to take the curve out of beaverton-hillsdale hwy won't happen, I just don't think the benefit would be worth it. Even the plan you have for Olson would work fine without moving the hwy south 100 ft.
I definitely get why most people would hate and not support such a concept, but there truly isn't any real fix for it if something this big doesn't happen. And that's the fault of never fixing it before the continued to expand it all so much, and develop all along it. Keeping it as is isn't a option that should happen either.
I cut out a lot of other ideas I mentioned that I know many would come up with to "fix it", but none of them would do anything except likely make the problems far worse. The most American thing would be to turn it into a freeway interchange type of network.
Having two large roundabout would have their own issues, which was a suggestion someone already suggested on this video, and would still require a large amount of space, as well as need sufficient space between them, one for Scholls & BH, the other for BH and Olsen.
just trying to come up with a lower-footprint approach- what if we assume that the two sections of Scholls Ferry can be disconnected? have the southern section of Scholls Ferry turn sharply northward to meet OR-10 at a right angle, and finagle Oleson and the northern section of Scholls Ferry to meet at a similar right angle, as if they were now one road. several businesses and some residential would need to be removed, but far, far less than in your proposal; my rough sketch on Google maps would suggest these two fully distinct intersections would be between 600 and 900 feet apart (depending on the details of the routes, of course). this doesn't have the same pathway creation or make room for densification, but the greatly reduced numbers for residential displacement lower the political risks and raise the chances for this nightmare to actually be removed. the biggest concern in my mind would be a question of how many people would be making a right-left to continue on the roads that currently form Scholls Ferry, but the northern side of it especially seems small enough to manage.
this would put the intersection between OR-10 and southern Scholls Ferry just north of where the House of Pipes and Chevron are atm, and the intersection where Oleson and northern Scholls Ferry come together would be between Noodles Restaurant and Dublin Pub, at least as i'm drawing it, so about 800' between these two intersections. with good luck and significant planning you might avoid any residential impacts, but i think there's one apartment complex that would probably be affected by shifting Oleson. several businesses would have to go, with no alternative.
just to add, i'd probably rename the northern Scholls Ferry to Oleson, to minimize confusion for people seeing the roads for the first time; would take some getting used to for locals, but that would be true for literally any changes.
I understand and like the idea of this concept, but god I despise the idea of having a road/thoroughfare like Scholls get severed to where people would need to zig-zag between the intersections just to continue along them either direction. And that in itself would create a major issue with traffic flow and increase dangerous lane changing within a short 800ft window just to pull that off as a driver. It'd also be a pain in the ass as a bicyclist or pedestrian.
I actually recorded me sifting through the data for traffic volumes for this area and each of the main roads, and surprisingly, Scholls Ferry sees slightly _MORE_ traffic on the northern side than it does the southern side of the current intersection, somehow. Though worse is, most data was last collected in 2021, with the rare exception of one 2023. So the numbers are royally skewed, given not only COVID numbers during the lock-downs, but also the 2017 widening causing a lot of skewing, as well as the westside pipe project causing more of the same.
I've forgotten Olsen's numbers, but it wasn't as straightforward as I wanted it to be, since Oregon has a really weird, illogical road jurisdiction/ownership model, where any city can buy ownership and jurisdiction over a road, even as they enter into other cities or counties, while the counties also own some of the roads, and ODOT itself actually has very little ownership/jurisdiction of them. I had to jump around in the house of pain (heh) between Washington County Roads, City Of Beaverton and Oregon itself just to find all of the data on each of these roads at this point or at least area. I also lack a program necessary to look at the state's excel files for the full detailed data.
Of course, a huge part of fixing this intersection mess is making it so that it can support densification as that is inevitable according to the laws relating to the Town Center program the city and county are a part of with the state and feds. A fix isn't a fix if it does not account for the now increased demands put upon it.
I do really believe anything other than a drastic change that all people in the region will despise due to their mass displacement is just a band-aid treatment that may TEMPORARILY "fix" or alleviate some of the many issues with it, however. We can't look at it and consider fixes in the current and near-term, as it has to be the long term. Otherwise this will be a never-ending nightmare that always remains as "could have gotten fixed, BUT".
The lack of political support, in my case, specifically from voters, is exactly why I noted the state has to do something like this without allowing anyone to vote on it. Rip the band-aid off and get it over with so that we never need to worry about it again.
@@robynkolozsvari River Road > Scholls Ferry > Olsen > Skyline Blvd Lol, that would be the most Portland Metro area thing to do ever. Just keep renaming the damn road every few miles haha.
@@TheCriminalViolin well my concept here is that it would no longer be considered a single road, is the broader purpose of the renaming lol, instead it would be Oleson turning into Skyline and Scholls Ferry would end where it meets Beaverton-Hillsdale
I go through that intersection a fair bit and it's such a mess. Turning right onto scholls ferry is so damn confusing.
I can imagine! Just looking at it in person, especially as a pedestrian hurts my brain.
@TheCriminalViolin Lmao yeah, I also used to take my friend to some of the businesses there, and exiting them is the absolute worst.
Super interesting vid. Reminds me of notjustbikes. Keep up the good work!
Thanks, I appreciate it!
Just looking at it is giving me anxiety...
For real! It drives me ballistic just knowing it exists, it's history and that we could have fixed this before it even became a real issue. They really had to be on some kind of hard drugs I feel like to think "yeah, this is fine, this is what I went to school for to get my engineering and planning degree."
It may be different than the other proposals, but could one main intersection of Scholls Ferry, Beaverton Hillsdale, and Oleson work? Yes, it would be a big intersection, but there would not be a short segment with a need to time signals between two intersections. Scholls Ferry would be diverted to the east on the south side of BHH, then approach at closer to 90 degrees than now, and Oleson would bend to the west as it approached from the south. The section of SF north of BHH would be diverted to the east slightly and leveled. Some businesses between Oleson and Scholls Ferry would need to be removed or moved.
I did think about that, but I do not believe it would be a long term solution. And considering those roads together average between 80k & 90k vehicles per day combined through it as it is now, then taking into consideration the redevelopment and infill set to happen in the next 5-10 years along it as well as in the surrounding neighborhoods which would greatly increase the amount of traffic going through it each day, it really would be I think a worse choke point that way than it is now, ironically. It is also a large reason why I made the follow-up on Roundabouts, given how so many people on this video seem to believe one or two would cure all of the issues it currently faces and will face in the next decade.
I am happy that you gave a different concept than what most commenters are giving (that is when they give them, which has pretty much been just "ROUNDABOUT"). Someone else suggested freeway like ramps for right hand turns, which was close to one of the typical American engineering and planning options I mocked but then cut out in editing from this video. But that's about the size of it. Lol.
Had to bike through that intersection a few times a few different ways. It is indeed a nightmare.
Oh God what a terrible mess. I kinda wanna draw a redesign myself.
I'd love to see what you come up with!
What in the absolute America is this mess. Needs more underpasses and roundabouts.
The underpasses would be a issue themselves, as the area has infamous drainage issues, and it also sits atop a filled-in wetland, that itself sits along and within the 100 year flood plain of Fanno Creek. In fact, much of Downtown Beaverton and along the BH corridor has this exact issue. In example for downtown, the two empty plots of land north of the MAX tracks at Beaverton TC are still untouched because of major drainage problems, and flooding issues despite it sitting at or above street level in many parts. They once did attempt to build something on the plot due north of the TC, but quickly found it nonviable and tore it down. That, and Rats. The rats love using the creeks & drains.
Roundabout
It would be so easy to fix within the existing roadspace. The amount of destruction that you propose is SOOO unnecessary
Funny enough, apparently some planners and engineers that contracted with Washington County actually have a near identical proposal to fix it as I have here, which someone linked in the comment section.
I find it rather hilarious, as it actually solidifies my concept and gives it some real meat to back it up, along with the reasons I stated in this video (and the roundabout video) why what I point out is logical and leads to such a big change that would displace many. It's not just some uneducated non-professional Urbanist dork on TH-cam proposing a horrible, dumb, no-good fix anymore, but actually aligned with some experts in the field of traffic engineering and road planning. The fact so many people are genuinely upset, livid, or scolding me in the comments while insisting one or two roundabouts would fix all of the problems here, including long term only adds to the satisfaction it gives me and the hilarity of it.
"Just leave it to the professionals, as you clearly don't know what you're talking about". I guess some professionals also need to leave it to other professionals, then... whoops! haha
@TheCriminalViolin bro are you upset? Didn't need to write a speech. All I said was it could be done within the existing area. I work in the industry and I never mentioned roundabouts.
Other solutions are out there, I'm not going to mansplain them as I don't want to fulfill your urges for an argument. I am simply stating that is is possible without displacement.
Have a good day 🍻
@@JustinJamesJeep I have no idea where or how you got the impression I am upset or am fracking for a argument, but okay boss. I am simply a very detailed person, so more often than not, my comments and replies are like a dissertation or expose. If that somehow equates to someone being upset, or wanting to argue in your eyes... I don't know what to tell you. Though admittedly if you think my reply to you is long-winded, you have NO IDEA or concept of just how long I usually comment or reply. lol
@@TheCriminalViolin so rather than replying to the meat of my message you've responded to the part about you being upset.
Are you able to understand that it is possible to do within the existing area or are you just going to ignore that thought
There looks to be plenty of space to rework those intersections without building new roads though neighborhoods.
I ask, what is the intent of your "redesign" improve safety? Add capacity? If it is to improve safety this can be done with the existing sapce. If you want to add capacity I ask why? Maybe space in these roads should be dedicated to bike or bus infrastructure. This is the only real way to add capacity in the same space.
This video provides a great example of what can be done. th-cam.com/users/shortsYZdc-SxY7-I?si=ORHAFo-XlYnp606x
It is many things, but the dominate basis is so that it is logistically sound, making flow efficient, and tied in importance is fixing it properly before all the higher density mixed-use redevelopment and infill transpires. Second priority is then safety, with the third being to add mode share for BRT and increase the pedestrian and bicyclist capacities while improving their own throughput and safety increases.
I felt I made all but the latter of my reasons abundantly clear in the video, however, so I am somewhat surprised to get your question here.
@TheCriminalViolin if you have a lot to say, you need to spend *more* time filtering out what's important and structuring your message. I don't care that you remember what the names of all the streets are and can say them quickly while zooming around the map. You need to focus on *goals* and why your proposal fits them best. If you have considered 10 alternatives, either actually explain why each was discarded, or don't mention them at all to reduce confusion and extraneous information.
@@shy-watcher I'd do that if I was trying to be a "professional", but I am not.
Lol ngl, this isn't a good plan.
You're proposing that they destroy massive amounts of road, uproot trees, bulldoze businesses and buildings, and redevelop probably a few miles worth of new road
Instead of a couple roundabouts
Did you even factor in cost when you made this?
Nope, because this isn't some "Expert analysis". Someone else already suggested the "correct" way to have made this is "simply" break it down with each concept and proposal one may have, give a summary of their details including cost, and compare each with each other until all but one I eliminate, then explain in detail step by step why I believe my concept is the best. If I was a "expert" or some big name "pro", I would have done exactly that. But I am not.
And I guarantee one or two roundabouts won't fix this at all. It may temporarily alleviate some of the problems, but it wouldn't actually be a long term fix. The only long term fix would be something truly drastic that voters would hate and area businesses and residents would despise. But we did this to ourselves, and the longer we wait to actually fix it for good, the more problems will arise, the worse the current ones will get and the more people and businesses will have to be displaced to actually fix the dang thing.
@TheCriminalViolin you're probably right about the second part, although you misunderestimate how effective roundabouts can be, but I do not think your solution is an effective one when it requires tearing down in the double digits of buildings lol. It's not effective and there's probably way better plans using existing infrastructure. I would probably leave it to professionals.
Just put an overpass on the main road and all the side streets can reconnect.
Haha, this kind of dives into one of the possibilities I felt some people would think to do instead to "fix" it that I cut out, which was essentially just tear it up and build a freeway or freeway style interchange in it's place.
@TheCriminalViolin I'm all for it being fixed with the best outcomes for everyone involved whatever form the fix takes. Good luck.
You need two roundabouts and problem solved.
I can just imagine two immense like, 4-6 lane roundabouts within 200-500 feet of each other 😂
@TheCriminalViolin
You guys don't tend to use them.
They work fine in Europe.
It was an interesting video.
The real problem is the through traffic.
We solved this sort of thing in my home town of Auckland NZ with two massive tunnels.
I installed the fire suppression in one of them.
A year of working at night.
@@Bob-h3n We do have roundabouts, and they are actually increasing in number too. There is multiple close by to this mess in fact. The largest is at Scholls Ferry and River Road. Another one is being built on Farmington (Beaverton-Hillsdale) and River Road as well, which is similar in size. Also, a smaller one is even closer, located just west of Hall Blvd on Hart. There is also one nearby on top of Cooper Mountain at Kemmer & 175th.
Underpasses or tunnels are likely not a viable option at this intersection though, because we have always had horrible drainage problems throughout the corridor.
@@TheCriminalViolin
Ground water was a problem for one of the tunnels but it was sorted.
It actually came in under budget and was finished early.
Not the normal way public works turn out here.
lol, real life sim city
Yep! I was thinking Ostriv, myself. I even mentioned it when recording the video, but opted to cut it out as I went on explaining why people should watch a time-lapse or videos of the game to see how messes like this form in the first place. Very video game-esque horror that we make for shits & giggles.