The Howell Line


A picture is worth a thousand words.

,

70 responses to “The Howell Line”

  1. It looks great! I’ve been interested in the possibility of a MAX line on the east side of the river for some time now. There are two concerns that I have, however: one is that most riders would end up going downtown; would a streetcar line be sufficient for the relatively large numbers of people transferring from northbound trains? Another concern is the precise routing: who wants or needs to get off along Water Avenue? There was a suggestion in the related thread that the MAX could run down Grand and MLK. While this would be slower, it would take people to more useful destinations, and have greater potential for development geared specifically towards transit users. All in all, though, this is an excellent suggestion that should be further pursued.

  2. NOOOOOO!!!! I use the yellow line to get to downtown and transfering to another line would add a lot of inconvenience.

  3. ive said it before. i live on the yellow line, and i think this is just smart. 5 minutes extra to downtown seems worth it to me to be connected to inner east side so well.

    i’ll be at le pidgeon every night.

  4. If Metro and TriMet expect to generate longer trips and more cross town ridership on transit, both Max and bus lines MUST start bypassing the downtown transit jam. It is just that simple. Jim has the right idea.

  5. There are lots of things on the inner east side, and there are planned to be more built.

    Water ave would be smart for MAX – then a streetcar loop along MLK-Grand for local access.

    Plus, along Water allows for easier connections to busses, and the East Bank Esplanaude for bicycling and pedestrian…

  6. This makes a lot of sense…and is it really slated to be named “The Howell Line”? I hope so.

    I too use the Yellow to get downtown from my home in North Portland, but I would be willing to sacrifice the convenience of not transferring for this.

    Anything that removes transit from the Steel Bridge bottleneck is a good thing.

    Wow. I could board with my kids in NoPo and get off near the Springwater Corridor for a bike ride!

  7. I think Chris responded to this idea some time ago, somewhere else, but why not build Streetcar tracks up and down MLK/Grand from Holiday Street south that could accommodate MAX. It would mean taking a lane from both streets for a transit ROW, but they are 4 lanes each…three should be plenty. Trains could us the existing tracks between RQ and MLK/Grand.
    MLK/Grand are the real spine of old East Portland, and until the Eastbank freeway is torn down, there is not going to be much re-development anywhere else due to zoning/industrial sanctuary, etc., not to mention the negative impacts of the RR line and bridge approaches.
    But I think Bob has the right idea…on the other discussion string on this question. Run a Yellow and an Orange line from N. Portland (Vancouver really), split it at the Steel Bridge. The Yellow can continue thru downtown and out Barbur, while the Greenline comes back across the Willamette (Caruthers or whatever alignment) to continue south with the Orange (eastside line) to Milwaukie and Oregon City.
    PS If I-5 thru the heart of Portland is such a key link in the Canada to Mexico freight route, then maybe its time to designate I-205 or I-405 as I-5….just a matter of changing a few signs. Then we can convert old I-5 into an arterial that will offer better connections for local freight.

  8. I remain a little bit skeptical of this idea, although experience says that Jim is often right even when I am skeptical.

    The question I have is how many people who use MAX from Milwaukie or North Portland want to get downtown. How many will actually use a line that gets them through the Central Eastside? Are these trains going to be used, or mostly empty? And is there enough excess capacity on the trains that do go downtown to handle the people who transfer at the Rose Quarter.

    The second question is what really is the impact of transfers. Its clear this will discourage some people from using transit, the question is how many. There seems to be disagreement between the planners at Trimet and Jim on this point.

    For instance, to get from Milwaukie to PSU (or anywhere on the west side south of the Hawthorne Bridge) is going to require two transfers or a transfer at the Rose Quarter that is way out of direction. That seems to be to be a pretty substantial barrier. How significant is that, or similar situations, in terms of the number of trips?

  9. This particular line doesn’t exactly make sense. While I approve of the route in general, I can’t see a connection being made between the Rose Quarter and Burnside Bridgehead (what happened to that, by the way?) There is existing track there (probably BN-owned) but even then, construction would completely close the Rose Garden TC, cutting off all three existing MAX lines.

    I would advocating connection a Milwaukee MAX to the Rose Garden TC, but keeping the yellow line to downtown, and inserting an additional route that goes from NoPo to Milwaukee.

  10. For instance, to get from Milwaukie to PSU (or anywhere on the west side south of the Hawthorne Bridge) is going to require two transfers or a transfer at the Rose Quarter that is way out of direction.

    Why is that?

    We make a similar trip (from Brooklyn) now and one transfer is all that would be needed if bus slines crossing the river stay similar. And that transfer is not even needed if you walk maybe three blocks downtown.

    I think people don’t grasp how many busses cross the Ross Island and Hawthorne bridges… And how many people NOW can NOT get north or south past hawthorne EXCEPT on one bus that only runs every 30 minutes.

    I would LOVE to be able to bus it to Lloyd district area or N. Portland – but right now I have no options except to go through downtown.

    Tri-Met SERIOUSLY needs to address the “cross town” issue. Going from say, Beaverton to Lake Oswego – is impossible realistically on Tri-Met. Same with Milwaukie to N. Portland.

    heck, they also need to address the fact that all these people are buying Condos downtown, in the pearl, and SoWa – and many of them work in the burbs. But all of the capacity is directed IN to Portland in the morning and OUT of Portland in the evening. So if you are in Portland and need to go against “peak” travel directions, you are screwed.

  11. What’s best about this MAX eastside alignment – it’s a true rapid transit route, and it makes the Rose Quarter accessable to neighborhoods along the Milwaukie/Oregon City route.

    However, this alignment requires complex transfer stations at the three bridgeheads to reach eastside districts. Transfers with the Caruthers Crossing alignment (at OMSI and SE 12th) are probably simpler.

    I can no longer see how an eastside alignment should have a high priority. Maybe in the future, things will change. For now, we should focus support on the Caruthers Crossing, MAX to Vancouver, the Eastside Streetcar Circulator, and frequent streetcar service for South Waterfront instead of a MAX line.

  12. I would certainly support a north/south MAX link on the eastside in addition to the Caruthers bridge, but not in lieu of a bidge on the south end of downtown. The new bridge is being planned to serve many purposes:
    – MAX to Milwaukie
    – Streetcar Loop
    – All southeast buses that currently operate south of Hawthorne
    – A future high-capacity transit line down Powell/Foster, and
    – Bicycles and Peds

    Yes, the bridge is expensive, but it will vastly improve transit connections on the south end of downtown and will improve access in and out of the South Waterfront.

    My concern with Jim’s concept has already been stated. It would force all rider from North Portland and from Southeast to transfer in order to get downtown. Metro’s data shows that the majority of rider are going downtown and what will they transfer to during rush hour? The existing buses and light rail trains are already packed.

  13. Jimโ€™s โ€œHowell Lineโ€ plan has advantages that far out weigh those if compared to the overpriced and sluggish Eastside Streetcar plan,

    1. The Howell Line would be operated as part of the TriMet system while the Eastside Streetcar will require a yearly 5.6 million dollar operating subsidy from a yet to be determined source of taxpayer funds..

    2. The Howell Line would provide a direct inner Eastside connection between the North and South ends of the City. The Eastside Streetcar for the most duplicates existing transit connections on a route that would require far less capital and operating expenses if it was operated by modifying bus routes.

    3. The Howell Line would operate on a private right-of-way in a low motor vehicle traffic area that supports the struggling Eastside Industrial area. The preferred route of the sluggish Eastside Streetcar will gum several major arterials and a Willamette River crossing, negatively impact traffic including freight traffic, and create more overall congestion within the central city.

    4. The Howell Line would not require the construction of the multi-million dollar Caruthers Bridge that an Eastside Streetcar is expected to use.

    5. The Howell Line offers potential high speed connections while the Eastside Streetcar travels at speeds that are not much faster than walking.

    6. The Howell Line would primarily benefit Eastside working class people and cross town commuters.. The Eastside Streetcar has been concocted by the Westsiders as yet another subsidy to move the laborers to and from downtown so the parking spaces can be reserved for the affluent people whom are expected to be shopping at high end boutiques. With an array of developments and taxpayer subsidies, the City of Portland wants to make downtown into the Mecca of high end shopping and force out the small booksellers, magazine rack news stands and other business that primarily cater to the middle and working class.

    A conclusion can be drawn that The Howell Line is a genuine transportation option while the Eastside Streetcar is more of a political toy designed for those who want enact social engineering.

  14. Of course a Howell Line would operate much better as a BRT–much more flexible routing possibilties. But too many people are too enamored of their “trolleys” too appreciate reality.

    And while I am in favor of a Caruthers transit bridge, it ain’t going to be built in our lifetimes, I feel.

  15. Referring to Jim Howellโ€™s plan, Brian Newman said: โ€œIt would force all riders from North Portland and from Southeast to transfer in order to get downtown.โ€

    This is little sacrifice for an overall route plan (Jimโ€™s) that would better serve the entire community with a less costly price tag. Downtown already has an over-subsidized propped up economy with more direct and daily transportation related financial support and taxpayer assistance than any other part of Metroโ€™s tri-county coverage area.

    So to be fair to all the other transit riders that prefer not to transfer between destination points, most transfers within the current Max should also be a target for elimination. For example: people that want to go between Northeast Portland and the Expo Center on Max should not have to make a block long transfer at the Rose Quarter. There should be direct run through trains between the interstate Avenue line and Points along the Banfield line with no transfers required.

    Not everything in this community has to rally around downtown Portland. It is time Metro start paying attention to the transportation needs for the rest of the region, including the need for highway expansion. Try letting downtown Portland stand on it s own two feet for a while. Downtown is a highly affluent part of town that should not require a continual pumping of taxpayer funds to maintain its vibrancy

  16. Brian,

    The majority of the riders are now going downtown because that is where the current system takes them.

    The jury is still out as to which alignment would serve the most riders. I suspect it would be the eastside alignment because those people destined downtown would still opt for transit over driving. They could transfer to and from streetcars, which could be timed to meet the MAX trains at OMSI or the Hawthorne Bridge Station as well as the Hawthorne Bridge buses.

    At the north end they could transfer to and from the Blue, Red and Green Lines at the Rose Quarter Station. Capacity to and from downtown would be the same or better than if the Yellow Line diverts downtown. The Steel Bridge limits capacity (30 trains an hour). In fact downtown capacity would probably be greater if the Yellow Line did not have to cross the Blue, Red and Green lines at each end of the Steel Bridge. Even today, Blue and Red Line inbound trains must sometimes wait for outbound Yellow Line trains to clear the Rose Quarter junction.

  17. VR said:
    “Tri-Met SERIOUSLY needs to address the “cross town” issue. Going from say, Beaverton to Lake Oswego – is impossible realistically on Tri-Met. Same with Milwaukie to N. Portland.”

    Beaverton to Lake Oswego, you are right, although hopefully that will be better with the Commuter rail, (although that is rush hour only.) The other destination pair is served by the 75-St John’s to Milwaukie TC, via Lombard and 39th Ave, (it never goes downtown,) and it is frequent service too…

    Not that that is an argument against the Howell line, I think that that is a great idea. I think that they should build the Caruthers Bridge too, with two lines from the north, (one going to downtown, and one not,) and two lines from the south, (one going downtown, and one not.) The other advantages for that is if some idiot with a 130 foot piece of pipe breaks the other bridge, and it takes a couple of days to fix it, all the train cars aren’t on the wrong side of town… (I’m a fan of having backups, I’m kind of weird that way.)

  18. What a dumb idea. I wonder how many billions of dollars they are going to waste on this ludicrous idea.

  19. I think we should get a drive together to let our federal representation know about the enormous scam these local politicans are pulling on our populace. This is injustice.

  20. If there are effectively two lines–one from N PDX, through downtown, then on to Milwaukie, the other using the eastside bypass–I think this line makes sense. I think for the many people who might choose to ride the MAX to commute downtown the “5 minute transfer” is a real barrier and should not be ignored.

  21. I would be for these systems if they could stay within their budgetary guidlines and actually be on-time. Maybe I have just been incredibly unlucky the last two weeks but riding Tri-Met has been very uncomfortable. The only reason I don’t continue to drive is that I have developed a very significant eye problem that has made it extremely difficult to see. So I had to give up my job and am looking for a different line of work which doesn’t require staring at a computer terminal all day long. So I am a little grumpy about that and having to not drive. I’m sure you wouldn’t rather me be on the road with bad eyesight.

  22. Ok this is a nice comment – I promise. I just came up with an idea. The should put covered moving sidewalks across the bridges to connect to this proposed MAX line. I wonder how much that would cost and if this would be a viable option?

  23. I would be for these systems if they could… actually be on-time.
    Last Friday, I tried to use MAX from Goose Hollow to Hollywood TC. Took 40 minutes, and what felt like a good 5-10 minute wait at Skidmore Fountain (my least favorite stop on the entire system). Then, I had to transfer to the 75 to get to where I was going.
    When I take the bus for 100% of the trip, I still make a transfer, but I’m where I want to be in 40 minutes, instead of still waiting to get there.

  24. Greg, I have yet to be late to work riding the MAX, and I have NEVER had to leave early due to delays, not even in the snow/ice of a few weeks back.

    The old saw of a slow and plodding transit system is inane and almost totally unfounded.

    … unless you’re talking about buses. Those things can get pretty late, the further out you go!

  25. “Tri-Met SERIOUSLY needs to address the “cross town” issue. Going from say, Beaverton to Lake Oswego – is impossible realistically on Tri-Met. Same with Milwaukie to N. Portland.”

    Beaverton to Lake Oswego, you are right, although hopefully that will be better with the Commuter rail, (although that is rush hour only.)

    Um, this is off topic, but:

    1. There is a DIRECT bus route from Beaverton to Lake Oswego. It’s the 78, and it’s a “cross town route” as so designated by TriMet and refers to almost all of the 70-series routes.

    2. Commuter Rail does not, and will not, serve Lake Oswego. It serves Beaverton, Tigard, Tualatin, and Wilsonville. The only way to get from Commuter Rail to Lake Oswego is via a bus (line 78 from Tigard, since the Tualatin-Lake Oswego busses terminate at Tualatin P&R which is over a mile away.)

    Granted, the 78 bus is a very SLOW route, but it’s still a direct way to get from Beaverton to Lake Oswego. You’re probably better off going downtown and taking a 35 to Lake Oswego (or a 36, during rush hour).

  26. I see a number of technical issues with this route:

    1. At the north end the line would require the demolision of the Eastside Esplanade connection between the floating trail and the Rose Garden TC. The proposed LRT route would be directly where the ramp and bridge is that crosses over the Union Pacific Railroad. The area is already constrained by the I-5 SB to I-84 EB transistion ramp and Lloyd Blvd. Is the solution to further rebuild this entire area so that eastbound traffic on the Steel Bridge is routed directly onto Multnomah Street?

    2. Is the junction between the N-S and W-E MAX lines going to be a simple diamond with no connection? If so, it’ll require a new maintenance facility. There has to be a way for trains to originate at Elmonica or Ruby Junction and access the N-S line; this creates a complex junction that requires more space. The W-E line already makes a sharp curve off the Steel Bridge to the north in order to make it underneath I-5.

    3. South of the Burnside Bridge, the space between the I-5 NB to I-84 EB transistion ramp and the Union Pacific is extremely narrow. This is also a bad location for a station due to a lack of visibility.

    4. Is the track to be built on top of Water Avenue? Or replace Water Avenue? There are no other streets west of the Union Pacific Railroad.

    5. How is it justified to have two light rail lines that are separated by a mere four blocks? Let’s face it – MAX and Streetcar are BOTH light rail. There is little difference between MAX and Streetcar in downtown, except that MAX gets a dedicated lane and Streetcar doesn’t; that’s just a matter of paint.

    MAX, if routed on MLK/Grand, would not require the Caruthers Bridge, would benefit from having access to an existing bridge over the Union Pacific, would be closer to the eastside business area, would have direct access to the Convention Center, and access to OMSI could be had with a simple pedestrian bridge that is 400 feet long. Not to mention that MLK/Grand are effective 4+ lanes wide, so there’s room for MAX. (Anyone who supports Streetcar on Burnside should support MAX on Grand/MLK.)

    The Eastside Streetcar could then be a straight shot east on Hawthorne.

    Honestly, I don’t see a good alignment for MAX from OMSI to Brooklyn. The UP is in a tight space and is double-tracked. I don’t think McLoughlin should be narrowed any more (if anything it should be widened, but even that is difficult at best)…IMHO, the MAX concept should be killed in favor of Commuter Rail between Portland and Salem (with enhanced service between Portland and Oregon City, say 15-30 minutes between Portland and Oregon City, and hourly to Salem), which would permit the Streetcar to be routed on 11th/12th and Milwaukie Avenue (or 17th Avenue) to downtown Milwaukie.

    Under such a plan, moving the train station to the eastside between the Morrison and Hawthorne Bridges would provide direct access to busses to downtown, and Streetcar to the neighborhoods.

  27. What happens when the east side freeway gets ripped out then, and the bridge ramps are removed? Is the MAX alignment going to be affected, or perhaps rebuilt? And if the esplanade is expanded and turned into a pedestrian area, how would a 40 mph max fit in?

    Almost should be built as a subway, really…

  28. I actually rode the Amtrak again tonight down to see my parents in Salem. I used the free voucher they gave me the last time when it was over an hour late. This time it was only 15 minutes late! I was so excited. I think if they are going to spend a billion on a better transit system they should just realign the heavy rail tracks and offer commuter service between a new train station by the Convention Center and put a REAL train on the east side – not these slow crappy MAX trains. They should have more frequent round trips on Amtrak between Salem, Portland and Vancouver and then let Vancouver decide if it wants its own LRT system, not bank on Tri-Met operating there, too. Besides, I don’t think Metro is allowed to operate in both states, some sort of Federal rule. Besides they’d have to call it something else, too rather than Tri-Met.

  29. Could they increase the zoning on the east side to get a new office concentration with this alignment? This would give more riders to the East Side Streetcar as well.

  30. Besides, I don’t think Metro is allowed to operate in both states, some sort of Federal rule. Besides they’d have to call it something else, too rather than Tri-Met.

    Simple.

    The Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago – and many other areas – have overlapping transit districts, each with a different function.

    TriMet frankly should be nothing more than MAX and a few long distance bus lines that serve multiple cities.

    Let the individual cities run their own bus systems; they can also choose to run their own express busses outside the city to downtown Portland or to other transit centers or destinations.

    A regional transit system will operate busses and commuter trains from Portland to Salem, and west and east (i.e. to Banks/North Plains, Sandy, Estacada, Molalla, Woodburn, Mt. Angel, Silverton, Dallas, McMinnville)

    Vancouver already has a separate bus system; they can choose whether to have C-Tran operate the trains north of Portland or not.

  31. As I said in the other post, if they were putting MAX in a tunnel right now instead of on a second slow and disruption-prone route, no eastside line would be needed because going through downtown wouldn’t be so slow. Though it wouldn’t really help those wanting to get to or from mid-eastside lines (Burnside down to Division).

    Oh, and how about trying an upgraded version of the 70 using McLoughlin and probably Grand/MLK (would need Powell connection)?

  32. Erik:
    1) Yep, probably. That can be moved farther out into the river though, and wouldn’t be that expensive, (they built the entire thing for a couple million.)

    2) I’m assuming they could just add more metal to the current N/E-W junction now, and since we can currently get trains onto the Yellow line from both directions, this would be a non-issue. E to S could probably be added to that intersection too, (there is some unused land right there,) but I’m not sure if there would be a way to get from W to S, (depends on what goes on top of the big pipe shaft right there.) Given that Ruby Junction and Elmonica don’t have the same maintenance equipment anyways, (for instance, only one of them can service the AC units,) even if they built another facility along that alignment, I think they’d want a way to get trains between the lines…

    3) True, you’d have to move that ramp over closer to I-5, but there is room to do it.

    4) I believe that it would be similar to interstate ave, it would require widening, removal of street parking, and etc, and then you could run it down the center.

    5) The streetcar and the [transit mall] MAX lines are going to be 5 blocks apart in Downtown, how is this different? But to really answer that question: because the MAX is the “express” route from North to South, and the streetcar is basically a moving sidewalk. They would serve different needs. Running the streetcar and the MAX on the same track means that the MAX can’t move any faster than the streetcar. Since the streetcar stops every two blocks, that means that going down MLK would only be slightly faster than going downtown for the MAX train… Not running on the same track saves the MAX a significant amount of time, because it only serves a few stations…

  33. I kind of like that idea – Tri-Met for MAX only. Then people can ride their skateboards or bike to the nearst MAX or Tri-Met can subsidize the truly destitute poor or disabled to provide them with taxi service to the MAX.

  34. Running the streetcar and the MAX on the same track means that the MAX can’t move any faster than the streetcar. Since the streetcar stops every two blocks, that means that going down MLK would only be slightly faster than going downtown for the MAX train… Not running on the same track saves the MAX a significant amount of time, because it only serves a few stations…

    TODAY, in the central city, MAX does exactly the same – it stops every two blocks or so. Same is true for the Lloyd District and in Hillsboro; and the Beaverton TC and Beaverton Central stations are also very close to each other.

    I have no problem if MAX were to be a true express, but it just isn’t. Making MAX a true express would require the outright closure of many stations – at least two stations in Hillsboro, several stations between Hillsboro and Beaverton (I would nominate Quatama, Elmonica, Merlo and Beaverton Creek), Beaverton Central, and then most of the downtown stops between the tunnel and I-405 (I would close all but PGE Park), and then many of the Burnside stops.

    On the A-Line, it’d result in closure of all stops except PDX.

    On the I-Line, all stops except Killingsworth and Expo Center. (Maybe Going Street as well.)

    Now, by doing such, it would eliminate most of the local service that was used to sell MAX to replace bus service – so doing so would require a massive buildup of bus service that would parallel MAX service – in essence nothing more than what TriMet does when there is express bus service alongside a local route (see 12 and 94X or 33 and 99X).

    Unfortunately there is little distincton between MAX and Streetcar (in the central city), and without millions in changes, there won’t be. That’s why I would rather kill the Milwaukie MAX and use Commuter Rail as a solution that would go all the way to Salem; and then use Streetcar to serve the inner SE neighborhoods to Milwaukie.

    In the central city, Streetcar and MAX move no faster (if MAX does move faster, it’s only because it has a dedicated travel lane. Anyone with a few dozen gallons of white asphalt paint, some diamond pattern stencils and a few signs could give Streetcar a dedicated lane, too.) When there’s a Red, Blue and Yellow train in quick succession, MAX moves even slower due to track congestion.

  35. The route is fine. Just do it with the streetcar, instead of MAX. Not enough capacity, you say? Simply add more vehicles. ALso from Milwaukie you could connect to the westside for trips to SOWA, pill hill and downtown. Why should US taxpayers contribute several dollars for each ride on the MAX? There has to be a better way. I thought Americans were ingenuous.

  36. Whatever plan, how about a public vote?

    I would like to know if all of these extensions of the street car and MAX will be avoiding any and all public votes?

    And no, electing and re-electing status quo politicians is not the same. With the blitz of every newspaper and every sitting politician endorsing every status quo candidate, every election cycle, that fix is in.

    That’s not good representation.

    The only reason to avoid public votes is to avoid the “wrong” outcome.

  37. Greg Tompkins:

    If you hate these transit things so much for being late and over budget I have some questions for you.

    Which light rail and bus alignments in the Portland area have gone over? Exclude the tram, I’m aware that it was a reidiculous boondoggle, but when a private entity pays for the vast majority of it and the city only picks up part of the bill – it’ll get built regardless. But in that case, the overruns primarily where paid by private sector and a small portion (millions, but smaller none the less) where paid by the taxpayers.

    In addition to that, please read the entire entries (like the two lines w/ the picture) before stating how much of a boondoggle an idea would be that a single individual citizen who cares about how things work puts forth an idea by his own hand.

    …and also the notion that transit is any more subsidized than autos and roads is really bad logic. The amount we spend on autos and roads (even when we DON’T use it as primary transit) is vast in comparison, even though we’re fortunate that mostly private enterprise takes care of most auto costs and unfortunate that public government is what provides most transit infrastructure and funding now. Being that the later is far the inferior in efficiency and performance.

    …I digress though…

    My point was to write, as many have already on this idea, that this is a spectacular idea compared to the downtown bus mall extension. It is far superior in functionality, performance, and movement of persons while providing a real east side solution. The Streetcar idea is nice, but this is a real serious people moving plan that in the process includes a vast number of persons and transportation needs.

    I hope that someone, somewhere, closely related to Trimet that has enough pull (maybe you Chris, Maybe Rex… whoever) pushes for some logic more closely related to exactly what Mr Howell has proposed here.

    Especially with the stated fiasco of the “convention center motel/hotel” proposal , Burnside Streetcar (not that I’m against it), or some of the other ideas that have caused massive heat from the general populace (mostly people stopping mid sidewalk to look at Tribune articles and say, “WTF is THIS IDIOCY!!!”
    … I would be very happy to see this proposal seriously put forth.

    …and on my last commenting point…

    Erik H – VERY good point about north south commuter rail and REAL train operations in general between Portland, Salem and even further. If Oregon wanted to really prepare for the hordes of Californians and others coming to this area the idea would get SERIOUSLY PUSHED. If they ran frequencies and real trains like Metro (in Chicago) they would surpass the current 3 lane interstate with merely a 15 minute train frequency. The only problem would be, what to do with the current freight trains on those tracks, and how can we work with Union Pacific to figure out a way to add the additional throughput. I digress though, it’d be a lot easier and smarter then adding another 2-3 or 4 lanes to the interstate (6-7 lanes each direction would make for a serious issue of diminishing returns – see LA & other places – blagh). Besides that, even though it would allow large segments of sprawl to occur, having stations open up areas for development outside of Portland between Oregon City and Salem would be a great boon to the local housing prices, the ridiculous and artifically higher prices of the Portland area could then be segmented by sprawled towns created around transit stations (ala Chicago, New York, and other great cities)…

  38. I just wanted to add the Metra in Chicago runs trains into Indiana (as far as South Bend) and Wisconsin (to Kenosha), I’m sure we can figure out how to run MAX into Washington if there’s enough interest.

  39. Couple of other challenges for an east bank alignment:

    The industrial users of the eastside would like see this as a push to turn the eastside residential and be a net loss of industrial lands in the city.

    The proposed alignment via the downtown bus mall connects to the single largest source of transit trips in the region: PSU. Not connecting the main north-south line to this would underserve the largest user group.


  40. Greg Tompkins said:

    I think we should get a drive together to let our federal representation know about the enormous scam these local politicans are pulling on our populace. This is injustice.

    No, not a “drive” together. Perhaps a ride.

  41. Besides that, even though it would allow large segments of sprawl to occur, having stations open up areas for development outside of Portland between Oregon City and Salem

    I don’t think that such will happen; in fact I think it will concentrate development.

    I-5 is already six lanes between Portland and Salem; south of Wilsonville it has only a handful of offramps.

    By providing commuter rail (my solution is to purchase the line from UP and double-track the route, giving UP exclusive freight rights over it so it can continue to operate but is freed from the responsibility of maintaining it) between Portland and Salem it provides a despirately needed public transit mode, and also enhances transit between Portland, Milwaukie, Clackamas, Oregon City, and Canby. It would also provide transit to Woodburn – and in each city the railroad is in the center of town (unlike I-5 which passes about two miles to the west of downtown, and the Oregon Electric Railroad which is another mile or so further to the west). It could encourage transit oriented growth in Aurora, Hubbard and Donald (in both Hubbard and Donald there are quite a few subdivisions that are new or under construction).

    Since Portland and Salem are both major employment centers (Portland for commerce, Salem for government) there is two-way traffic flow that would make commuter rail make even more sense, unlike some systems where the trains simply operate in one direction; or MAX in which hardly anyone uses it eastward of downtown during the morning rush hour. With a simple connection between Hubbard and Wilsonville (using an existing state owned highway right-of-way) the Beaverton-Wilsonville line could be connected, creating a “Y” shaped system. Add the branch from Milwaukie to Sherwood (via Lake Oswego) and you’re now connecting the Tualatin industrial area, two commuter rail lines, and potentially two LRT lines, not to mention numerous bus lines. (Of course if down the road if commuter rail is built out to Newberg and McMinnville, you can see the synergies appear.)

    Add a new route to Scappoose and St. Helens; potentially to Rainier (to capture the Kelso/Longview traffic). And maybe even a route to Troutdale, although this one is iffy due to the railroad being next to a freeway the entire time (and a very busy freight route with no sidings and difficult to expand.)

    Voila. We have a regional commuter rail system, and it’s done cheaper than LRT. It provides far more origin/destination options, and reduces the need for long distance commuting.

    And, it also helps improve freight movement, because the same tracks used by freight trains will be improved allowing for higher speeds, and with double-track or more sidings will add more capacity. MAX can’t do that.

  42. I am in complete agreement with this Eastside N/S line, although I have to agree with some of the earlier commenters that Water Ave is not really the best choice. The pedestrian shed is only half of what it would be further east (since nobody is getting to the stations from west of Water). And why do the stations need to be at the bridges? Pedestrian access to the bridges would be much more difficult than from the streets further east (and don’t the buses stop further east too).

    I wouldn’t want to run the MAX on the same tracks as the Streetcar, so maybe put MAX on MLK/Grand and Streetcar one or two streets over, or run them both on MLK/Grand but in different lanes.

    Let the Green line pick up the people at PSU and go out Barbur, or maybe even South Waterfront, but leave the Yellow line on the east side!

  43. I advocated for this eastside alignment between 1995 and 1998, the years in which the ill-fated South/North MAX faced an uncertain future with its serious shortcomings from end to end. Interstate MAX was a huge improvement with fewer impacts, reduced cost, more development potential, more acceptance in the neighborhood, and a better terminus at Expo Center.

    In 1998, just before the final voter rejection of S/N, I switched to supporting an extension of SW 1st Avenue rail, either connecting to the streetcar line at Harrison or new rail on Lincoln Street to a terminus in South Waterfront at the Caruthers Crossing. A line to Tigard could connect on Front Ave. Even this compromise MAX route could not sway planners away from the Transit Mall alignment.

    I put a lot of effort into my advocacy for a compromise. In the end I feel the integrity of my concepts for all-important transfer systems can still be maintained with the Transit Mall alignment and the Caruthers Crossing. At this point, the most important MAX extension to work on is reaching Vancouver. That will be a great one!

  44. Ah! all these (theoretical) logistical problems.
    Serves everyone right for having supported an inappropriate modality for Portland (light rail).

    If we had done BRT instead (starting with the bus mall in 1978), we would have had, IMO, a far superior system in terms of flexibilty and lessened number of transfers.

    I’m just glad that none of this stuff discussed here will be built after the year 2009 projects now under construction come on line (money, you know), except for possibly the central eastside streetcar.

    In one regard, that is a shame, because I think a Caruthers transit bridge would have been a good thing.

  45. Well they need to improve all modes of transport, including relocating the airport out to Canby, more train lines along the entire Eugene- Vancouver B.C. megalopolis, widening the freeway, building the bridge to Vancouver WA, the new proposed freeway on the westside from Salem to Longview, etc. Despite all their failed attempts to restrict growth, it’s going to keep happening as long as the Californians keep coming up here.

  46. Shay! Tha Porlnd wail’s pinaropriate, shnot frexable nuf. Fur speer’r wif beearty, shno? Shwad eyeshay, inway. Shreelgood, thataway.

  47. Well they need to improve all modes of transport, including relocating the airport out to Canby

    Whoa, what?!!

    The Aurora State Airport doesn’t have enough land for expansion; besides I thought the “leading” proposal to replace PDX was a mega-airport located near Centralia, which would also replace Sea-Tac, and would connect Seattle, the airport, and Portland with a true high speed rail line?

  48. I’d heard that idea too. They need to get it out of the urban centers because there are too many NIMBYists who don’t want the noise. Even with a high-speed train, how long would it take to get from Centralia to Portland or Seattle? Would this really be a viable option? Isn’t Centralia and hour drive away from here?

  49. It would take as long to get from Portland to Centralia on a real (200mph) high speed line as it does to take the MAX, and possibly even drive to the airport today (depending on where you start from).

    Portland to Centralia is about 90 miles… 200mph… That makes for a short trip.

  50. Oh,come on! There are FAR fewer people living in Centralia and I’m sure a “mega airport” would be of huge economic benefit to their area. If they relocated it to up there just think of all the land which could be used for high density transit oriented development where PDX used to be!

  51. PDX isn’t much of an airport anyways. I’d much rather share an airport with Seattle than have to go there every time I wanted to go anywhere that isn’t on the west coast. I believe a couple year ago the O made a stink about one of our congressmen flying into Seattle and driving to Portland, and how they should have flown into PDX. (They sheepishly pointed out that it was faster to fly to Seattle and drive, than have to change planes.)

  52. One benefit is that the airport check-in procedures could actually take place at remote facilities in downtown Portland and Seattle (and probably even Tacoma as well and maybe even Vancouver – this would take a LOT of traffic off of I-205!!), so that essentially once you’re on the train you’re effectively “beyond security”, so upon arrival all you have to do is go to your boarding gate. One nice benefit of this idea is that you don’t have to transfer your baggage from the train to the plane. Likewise, your baggage would be transferred automatically for you upon arrival (by plane) to the train, so you pick it up at the remote terminal.

    Separate trains would handle the Portland-Seattle local traffic (not destined for the airport).

    In addition this airport would eliminate the Horizon and SkyWest flights that fly between Portland and Seattle, as well as many of the repositioning flights for Alaska between its two hubs.

  53. You think Portland and Oregon will willingly give up the economic benefit that having an airport provides? If the airport were located somewhere else in Oregon I could see this getting done, but placing the airport in Washington makes this a complete non-starter.

  54. I said, “It would take as long to get from Portland to Centralia on a real (200mph) high speed line as it does to take the MAX, and possibly even drive to the airport today (depending on where you start from).

    Portland to Centralia is about 90 miles… 200mph… That makes for a short trip.

    But just want to add, it’s a completely insane idea to relocate the airport. Better to maintain both of the airports in Portland, and the SEATAC one for Tacoma and Seattle. But I do think that the passenger rail between those points should be run at least at the efficiency of the privately operated, profitable, Milwaukee Road 100+mph service that was available in the 30’s near Chicago.

    But that’s just my 2 cents. We American’s can’t seem to get our asses in gear over passenger rail even when our economic purse strings are stifled by automobile usage and could be put to much better use via passenger rail.

    But I digress… it’s just silly, sad, and frustrating travelling at a mere 79mph top speed between Portland and Tacoma every week.

  55. I have a feeling that Mr. Howell is proposing this eastside line because he might have a sense that the new transit mall downtown will be a disaster, with a top speed of 15 mph.

    However, this line would only create more transfers for many prople, which seems to be the trend around here as Portland moves more and more towards planning a dysfunctional transit system.

  56. I like it. This route removes some of the congestion from downtown and wouldn’t impede the bridge traffic. My only beef is that MAX, in general, has so many stops that it is impractical for longer travels. MAX stopping every two blocks downtown is insane. I’d vote for merging the Morrison and Hawthorne stops into a single stop and have everyone walk two blocks north or south to the bridge of their choice.

  57. Lame. Why have a max line go right down next to the river and right next to I-5? Who wants to get off there among all the warehouses? If you want to go downtown, you will just take the new max line being built down the bus mall.

    It would be better to locate this max line along MLK or Grant, or maybe 7th. But I thought they were going to build a street car to connect the Rose Quarter with OMSI, and have the new max line going down the bus mall cross the river at OMSI and continue on to Clackamas town center?

  58. I believe it’s very important that MAX maintain its slow travel through downtown. If there’s any place in the metropolitan region where MAX should run on surface streets slowly, it’s downtown. The 2040 Regional Plan is a breakthrough concept in urban area planning that depends upon MAX expansion north into Vancouver, Southeast past Milwaukie to Oregon City, Southwest to Tigard and several other extensions. None of these MAX extensions need exceed 20mph average speed. All offer more productive value than Jim’s eastside route.

    As far as high-speed trains go, the Amtrak Cascades is a high speed train that can reach 135mph, but need not exceed 79mph on its fantastic trip north to Centralia, where an international airport makes no sense whatsoever, and on to Seattle. And, MAX to PDX is ideal rail service. Good grief already.

  59. There is official mention of building the streetcar lines on MLK and Grand to run MAX trains. If problems with the Steel Bridge occurred, the Caruthers Crossing would become an alternate MAX route to downtown.

    It’s kind of odd that this emergency alternate MAX route is being studied. It seems to me the far more direct alternate route downtown is on the new streetcar tracks across the Broadway Bridge. And odd because I submitted the Broadway Bridge route into the planning process. Don’t ask me why. Thinking about it gives me a headache. Where’s my Homer Simpson beer bottle opener?

  60. Wells“Amtrak Cascades is a high speed train that can reach 135mph, but need not exceed 79mph on its fantastic trip north to Centralia, where an international airport makes no sense whatsoever, and on to Seattle. And, MAX to PDX is ideal rail service. Good grief already.”

    MAX to PDX is alright, and I use it regularly. But as always, when I see something that could work better, I have words to speak about it.

    MAX Trip to PDX: 30+ minutes form downtown. Not competitive with car travel, which generally takes 30 minutes from 2-3x the distance. The only time the trip is comparitive is during rush hour. I don’t have a problem with the extra time, because I read and such, but winning over auto drivers is not getting done when there is a time multiplier of over 2x for the “express” services of the MAX.

    As for the airport in Centralia idea, I don’t support that at all. It’s insane, can’t believe it was even proposed.

    As for the current Cascades service. It’s an EMBARRASSMENT compared to any developed nation and corridors that are populated on a similar level that demand service. It’s an embarrassment compared to what existed on that corridor line pre-highway subsidy and gluttony, before Amtrak’s subsidized existence. It’s just an embarrassment. But it is a nice ride between PDX and SEA. It could just be WAY BETTER than it is. Catch my blog for regular ideas on the 8 zillion ways it could be fixed with minimal amounts of money.

    The cheapest way would be to setup logical and competitive laws instead of the mess that exists today. Remember, in all technical reality, the Cascades ARE illegal by American FRA Rules.

  61. Adron- as usual you are correct in your observations: MAX needs improvement to be competetive with transit systems in other, similar cities.

    I think the question is: Should Portland strive to be a mid-sized world-class city, or should it remain a regional city?

    I think the choice has already been made…. And I support improving MAX and the rest of the transit system to provide a fast and effective transportation mode for most residents.

    I think that includes a downtown tunnel for the Red and Blue lines, a new SW route, Express Buses for suburb to suburb routes, a new Vancouver route, the Milwaukie route, a Powell route and Streetcars everywhere.

    If we can build a world class transit system, we can ease the growing pains that *are* coming. Portland will be growing and growing some more. Now is the time to prepare for that growth! Most people realize that we cannot build 12 lane highways all over the place…. The only other options we have right now are mass transit. Investment now, even if expensive, will be cheaper than if we wait.

    And Wells, I usually agree with you, but your comment regarding MAX remaining as a surface system downtown, in my opinion, is totally wrong. Downtown Max is a major bottleneck. The best things we could do for ridership are to increase travel time through downtown and over the Steel bridge. A tunnel under downtown and the river provides a solution to both issues. I say plan the tunnel now….. It will be the backbone of our future transit system and provide a center… Similar to Chatlet/les alles in Paris….

  62. Nate:
    Burying MAX doesn’t solve anything by itself, the problem is that it stops 11 times between Rose Quarter and Goose Hollow, (inclusively.) The train only needs about 5 minutes to travel that far, (on the current track, complete with all the sharp curves,) but it takes 20 because of all the time that it spends stopped and stopping or starting. You’d have to eliminate most of the stations before the train would even be able to get up to a reasonable speed in a tunnel, and even then, you’d only save 2 or 3 minutes over eliminating the same stations and keeping it on the surface, (although it would cost a couple billion dollars.)

    Not that I’m opposed to trimming a few stations out of downtown, (every two blocks made sense when it was the end of the line, but it isn’t the end of the line anymore,) but we should call the problem what it is…

  63. I prefer MAX on the surface…ever since my favorite streetcar in Frankfurt aMain was replaced by a subway. Station frequency appears to be the major reason for MAX’s slow progress through downtown. Convention Center and Pioneer Place were added after MAX opened in ’86.
    Goose Hollow (at Salmon) was added after protracted discussion with that neighborhood that was not happy to have MAX in the first place, but then demanded an extra stop, two blocks from PGE Park Station…just down the hill from the MAC.
    The main argument for a tunnel is longer trains, which would involve the retrofit of the entire system. And a tunnel, of course, would have fewer stations. In 20 years we will do this.
    A couple of pieces of data would inform this discussion…# of through trips or their % of total trips; I believe most people do not travel the entire distance from Goose Hollow to Lloyd Center. The other is station dwell time…if you load more people at fewer stations, how much less or additional time is required compared to loading fewer people at more stations. It could be a wash. Longer trains would mean even more people to load and unload.
    I say keep the trains on the street…maybe put more cars in a tunnel or two.

  64. I don’t want them to run longer trains, I want them to run more trains! (I feel the same way about articulated buses.) But seriously, waiting 15 minutes for a 10 car train, verse waiting 3 minutes for a 2 car train is a trade off that has very dramatic changes in the ridership. And when you get to the point that you have a full train every 3 minutes, well, time to add more lines/track, not longer trains…

  65. nate,

    if we are going to become “world class” we need to focus on things other than max trains. We need a real research university. We need some Fortune 500 companies.

    The problem with the “world class” model that is bandied about here is that it most often means “I want to look like Amsterdam.”

    What does a “world class” city in the American model look like? Amsterdam or Los Angeles? Berlin or Chicago? Rio or San Fran?

    No city in the US is building the kind of transportation infrastructure that we are building yet somehow we’ve decided this is the only avenue to “world class” status.

  66. If we are going to become a “world class” city (my first impression is San Francisco), then which of our suburbs is going to become the new Oakland?

    I feel sorry for those who live in Vancouver…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *