I don't know about this whole thing. One major problem that many portlanders see with this plan is the utter lack of a quick travel time thru downtown. Is it really smart to spend so much cash on another max line thru downtown when it will be obsolete inb 10 years because of congestion? Why not kust build a subway now rather than another surface alognment? We'll be regreting this I think.

I too would prefer a subway, and the question came up last night.

Two answers: We don't have the extra $500M it would cost (at least) and some people believe there is advantage to the vibrancy of the urban environment to having people experience the city at the surface level.

I'd answer the 2nd point by putting a Streetcar line on the surface, but I don't know where to scrape up the extra money.

Chris,
did TriMet begin to describe what has been called the through "auto lane" as a "multi-modal lane"? I want bikes to be welcome there, just as they are currently seen on Yamhill/Morrison.
I wonder what they intend to do in the block where the sheriff's deputies use the "auto lane" for loading and unloading prisoners, etc.

Yes, TriMet was clear that bikes would be allowed in the "multi-modal" lane.

I wrote a letter to TriMet regarding the mall and my concern over the weaving rail line. The tracks will change lanes about 14-15 times just in one direction of the mall. Buses can change lanes easily but it is much more complicated for rail cars since they must change lanes where the tracks do.

I question how well light rail, buses, automobiles, pedestrians, bikers and for a short portion near PSU, streetcars are going to all share such a narrow right-of-way especially when buses and trains are weaving in and out. There has to be decent sidewalks widths since its the heart of downtown. Stations and bus stops take up space too. anyhow i hope my concerns are proven wrong.

I hope it does work out, although I bet it would have been nice to have left cars off the Transit Mall. Up here, it is an argument where some suggest that the bus tunnel should have stayed all-bus even though at the last minute before opening in 1989, an advisory refferendum in King County suggested, 2 to 1, that the tunnel be ready for Light Rail at a future date. Now the contractor decided to cut costs and not properly insulate the rails, and now those rails have to be replaced. That and the tunnel floor had to be dropped a little to accomodate level-board ing of Low-Floor LRVs. There are those who are worried that buses and trains cannot share the same tunnel. I guess the experience in Essen, Germany is not proof enough. A delegation from Seattle Metro went to Germany to observe that operation while tunnel construction was underway. THe only reason why Trolleybuses operated in that tunnel was a grant from the German Federal Government, and I guess during the confusion of re-unification, it was not renewed, and Essen ended the experiment.

Joint Bus/Rail use of the DSTT will only be for a few years, hopefully no later than 2020. By 2016 we could have North LINK completed as far as the UW. If Phase II includes funding to Northgate Transit Center in the North, and Tacoma in the South. KCM routes 41,71,72,73, 174 and 194 could be eliminated for sure, freeing up a lot of hours that can be redeployed.

Light rail on the Transit Mall is a done deal. However, a shuttle bus route with frequent service between Portland State and the Pearl District would have been a superior alternative. It would attract more riders, revitalize the Mall more effectively, and be safer, cheaper and less disruptive than the current plan.

Insufficient off-peak bus service on the Mall is its major flaw. The lack of frequent transit service at night and on weekends discourages the establishment of pedestrian oriented businesses, but buses can provide this service as well as trains, and at much lower cost. In fact buses are better for this purpose than trains because they can make more stops, travel faster and provide a direct connection between the Mall and the Pearl District. They also can be electrified for quieter and cleaner operation.

The claim that light rail on the Mall will increase ridership and capacity defies common sense. The Green Line from Gateway to Clackamas Town Center will increase light rail ridership but slow operation and bottlenecks downtown will have a dampening effect on this growth.

The capacity of the system will be limited by how many inbound and outbound trains can cross paths with each other at the Rose Quarter and at the west end of the Steel Bridge, not by Morrison and Yamhill Streets, as TriMet claims.

The crossover at the Rose Quarter of the Yellow Line already causes delays on the Blue and Red Lines. The added train congestion that will occur at the west end of the bridge when the mall leg is added will further reduce east-west rail capacity.

Grade separation (subway) is the only feasible way to significantly increase light rail capacity and speed across the river and through downtown but now there is neither the will nor the funds to build it. However it is disingenuous to claim that the proposed Mall Light Rail Project will accomplish these results.

What frustrates me about this whole process is that Tri-Met and city refuse to admit a subway *must* be built at some point. Once the Green line starts operation headways on the Steel Bridge will be 2 minutes! 4 lines traveling 10 mph in 2 car trains, this is recipe for disater. MAX trains are already jammed to capacity a good part of the day. With 1 million more people by 2030 MAX must increase to 4 or 6 car trains, which is impossible without a subway under downtown. The ambiance of New York, Boston, and Chicago doesn't suffer with lines underground and neither would portland, besides MAX is meant to be a regional transit system, not a tourist trolley. Imagine getting from Lloyd center to PGE park in 5 minutes instead of 20, or the Rose Garden to OMSI in 5-7 minutes. Pretending it's "too expensive" is a great way to set MAX's potential back 5-10 years.

I like the idea of electrified buses in Portland, I wish the electric trolley bus plan in the 1970s and 1980s happened.

We certainly need a subway tunnel and the short blocks stress the need for it even more. How do you guys envision a subway? Would it be west-side only or would it also go under the Willamette to the Rose Quarter and possibly further?

I heard that Ray Polani urged TriMet to build the Banfield line in a subway under downtown back in 1980.

Here are a couple of sites with people's suggested plans for a Portland-area subway system:

http://userfs.cec.wustl.edu/~adj1/max/subway.htm
http://userfs.cec.wustl.edu/~adj1/max/plans/index.htm

http://www.trainweb.org/aorta/rapidtrans.htm

(I have not given these a thorough look, just pointing them out...)

- Bob R.

Jon, if it had happened, I wonder if the ETB plan, if implemented, would have jumped in on Seattle Metro's joint purchase with Philadelphia. Each system got around 110 buses, but a three way order might have been better. (Seattle) Metro Trackless Trolley Buses went from 50 in 1973 to about 55 in '75(the gas crunch forced the new system to borrow a few from Museums to keep up), then those were replaced by 109 AMG ETBs, complemented by 46 Articulated ETBs in the mide 1980s. In 2002, 100 Gillig Phantom bodies were mated with 100 refurbished motors from the AMGs, which went to a net decrease of 9 vehicles, but the 46 articulateds are being replaced by 60 retreaded tunnel buses, which is a small increase. These vehicles, if peak oil is going to happen soon, should have a resurgence in popularity, possibly working in conjunction with LRT.(Happens in Switzerland and San Francisco). Dayton, Ohio has ETBs as part of their transit system. Philadelphia is going back and forth on what to do(although they would be integrated with Heavy Rail, Regional Rail, and Light Rail, all-electric, if they were re-equipped and the system expanded), Boston bought a few, the first Low Floor ETBs deployed in the US.

When construction breaks ground we all know that the green line will be a surface alignment LR line. But it is a real shame that PDX won't be putting in a subway since the funds we spend now on the new mall will be squandered when we reize 5 to 10 years from now that congestion requires a subway thru the CC.

Why even spend the funds to build the new green line thru the CC when it would be just asw effective to link it up with the current LR alignments at the rose quarter?

I agree that Tri-Met is jumping the gun on the Downtown Transit Mall. Hey, construction is still a year off...there may be time for a coalition to change their minds. Even if a subway cost $500 million, could there not also be some development potential below ground? Some European cities have huge shopping malls underground, at the subway stops. Personally I think the $500 million Milwaukie MAX is a waste; a two line streetcar would be cheaper and not need a new bridge, either.

Usually, the longer we wait for anything, the more expensive it gets. However, the post regarding the New Orleans streetcar shows that Portland doesn't have the final word on cost-effective commuter rail...there should be some new ways to make it cheap!

Streetcar is wonderful for short trips in the Central City....it might work to Lake Oswego, but MAX does a fine job being street friendly close-in, but faster as it gets farther out.
In Germany where most transit systems use the same technology as MAX, subways are common in central cities, but densities are way higher, and frankly, I enjoy the above ground ride we have today. I don't think subway speeds with stations 1/4 mile apart would be much faster. Longer trains would be possible, but then all or most stations along the lines farther out would have to be rebuilt.
Portland will get its subway someday, but its just not really needed or justified yet. When we do, we will also get a great streetcar network along the old MAX tracks!

Sounds like the city & streetcar group is really serious about extending service to Lake Oswego. I am kind of wondering - is this such a good idea now? Seems like close in John's Landing & Central Eastside should be more of a priority... what's the general feeling of this?

I know the rail line already exists and only has to be electrified, but how many daily riders would you get on the route?

On the same note, too bad there aren't any attractions in LO to make Portlanders want to visit. =P

Justin,

Well, you have to get to Johns Landing to get to Lake Oswego...

Actually, we are working both the eastside and Lake Oswego opportunities at the same time. They are not really in competition with each other. The local match funds mostly come from very different sources. The timing will probably be driven by specific factors in each corridor.

Chris: Would the LO route then be sort of a replacement for the current bus service (half-assed as it currently is) to that town? Seems like you would only want to run a streetcar down there every 20 or 30 minutes to be cost-effective... but what would the travel times be like to the new mall thing they built in downtown (one-way)? I never rode the excursion trolley down there (unfortunately). Funding must also be interesting... I would think you guys have a limited amount of funds for the subsidized lines, right?

======================

As far as the new MAX line is concerned, I'm really disappointed they are running it down 205 - if only (!) they could have ran it down the middle of 82nd like on Interstate, it could be a MAJOR catalyst for change in that blighted area. Sigh... oh well. Pedestrian access behind all the parking lots, on/off ramps, and loading docks of the malls is going to take a VERY long time to come...

We haven't gotten nearly as far as assessing how a streetcar would affect bus service to LO. The formal process is at the stage of recommending a choice between some kind of enhanced bus service versus streetcar.

Funding is always interesting. The current streetcar operating model is 2/3 TriMet, 1/3 City of Portland (from parking meter revenues). Once Streetcar crosses the Portland city limits, a new model is clearly needed.

I heard travel times for a Lake Oswego streetcar were to be 15 minutes between downtown Lake Oswego and Bancroft (SoWa) with another 10 minutes to downtown. This 15 minutes compares to about 45 minutes on the existing trolley line.

The WST line thru Johns Landing is an interesting one... an apartment complex was built in the 80s around the rail line so that the trolley runs between the buildings in the complex and diagonally thru the parking lot.

Are there any plans to upgrade the Willamette Shore Trolley into the modern streetcar line as opposed to shutting down the existing trolley operation and then extensively rebuilding it into the modern line? I would think a gradual upgrade of the line would be the way to go.

Also I wondering if there was any new info about the stops in the SW Lowell extension.

I am not up on the latest travel time estimates.

I don't think we believe the existing rail can be salvaged, although the trestles, etc. are still an open question.

The latest map I have for the Lowell extension (not sure if it's final) shows stops soutbbound at Gaines, at the turnaround on Lowell and northbound at Lane and Whitaker (4 stops total).

^
thanks

I heard those proposed travel times from an Oregonian article a few years ago

First of all, let me note that MAX (at least the Yellow line) experiences delays TODAY at the Interstate Wye. This is without the addition of a Green Line.

As for the mall, I agree that the best idea is to put MAX underground (in a bored tunnel, if possible, so the streets don't have to get taken out) but have stations only at the ends of the mall (Union Station & PSU). This would keep construction and operations costs down yet keep people on the street, which I have heard is one of the sticking points on taking MAX off the street. Right now, MAX is not cost-productive downtown because it must wait for traffic signals; it averages just 7.5 MPH.

^
but a station at pioneer courthouse square is essential

I just heard that planning for San Francisco's long discussed "Central Subway" through Union Square is on hold because of increases in the cost due to a deeper tunneling alignment... they were pretty far along in the planning stage and had lined up a lot of federal funding but now they are even seriously talking about a surface alignment thru Union Square to Chinatown which is crazy.

I agree with Justin that MAX along 205 is less desirable than another configuration. It's cheap, but far less effective than it would be if the stops were where people (houses, jobs, etc.) actually are... not along the freeway.

I don't know about all this subway talk. If we're going to pursue the idea we need to fully understand the ramifications.

First, already mentioned, all other MAX stops will have to be rebuilt to handle longer trains and bigger crowds. Think of the stops along the Banfield, they will have to be lengthened, but also widened, as the narrow platforms are only designed to handle two carloads of people. Add that to the extra $500M for the tunnel and it quickly escalates.
I agree with Lenny that the tracks won't be wasted when we eventually pursue a subway as the tracks should be used for streetcars, allowing fewer subway stops downtown.

Second, if Portland decides in 50 years to pursue a heavy rail subway system (after the initial subway is built on the mall) replacing light rail for regional travel, all the existing subway stations will have to be rebuilt to accommodate longer and higher floor trains.

Anyone who has tried to travel from the east side to the west side understands that we need a subway. However, if we are going to do it, we have to really think it through.

Also think about future expansion. As the rail lines get longer the need for express trains becomes important. We should think now about ways for trains to bypass stops (and other trains) on long trips, whether it's adding additional tracks around them or switching tracks. New York has a great but confusing express train system that substantially cuts travel times. I know you can't compare Portland to NY, but imagine the ridership draw if you could make it from Hillsboro to Lloyd Center in half the time (or God forbid Hillsboro to Gresham). Obviously this idea doesn't have priority, nor should it, but these are the things we should be demanding our leadership be thinking about when planning our future as a sustainable region.