Important Note:
This article has been updated with improved information.
The original version of this article, posted May 24, 2007, used schedule times from the #5 bus from Spring, 2004, which was during the time period in which the Yellow Line was being constructed, and therefore slowed bus travel times along Interstate Ave.
This revised version (posted June 8, 2007) uses #5 data from the fall of 2000, which is prior to Yellow Line construction and, according to TriMet, represents the highest ridership quarter for the #5 bus. (The general difference is that #5 trip times improve by 3 minutes across the board.)
In the author’s opinion, the overall conclusions have not changed, although the numbers aren’t quite as favorable to the Yellow Line as in the original version of the article.
Any reader comments posted prior to June 8, 2007 should be evalauted in the context of the original article.
Introduction
In a number of discussions here at PortlandTransport, questions have been asked and debates have arisen regarding the Interstate MAX Yellow Line.
In those past discussions I’ve tried to answer questions about travel times, ridership, quality of service, etc. using easily-found data from online sources. More recently, however, TriMet has responded to information requests to fill in some gaps in that information, which makes better before-and-after comparisons possible.
In these two posts, the first on travel times and ridership and the second on the pedestrian environment (coming soon), I’ve attempted to gather what I know about the Yellow Line, Interstate Ave., and the original #5 bus line into one place.
Take a ride into a land of lists, tables and analysis after the flip…
Travel Times
The addition of light rail to Interstate Ave. has improved travel times along that street and from downtown. However, MAX does not currently extend to Hayden Island / Jantzen Beach or to Vancouver. Riders going to/from Vancouver until recently had to take the #6 bus which did not have travel times as favorable as the old #5 (due to a different operating route and/or transfer waiting periods).
This week is a good time to compare schedules, however: C-Tran began service to the Delta Park / Vanport MAX station on May 13th, allowing for transfers to/from MAX and Vancouver-based bus service. In September, the level of service will be expanded. At that time, the #6 line will be reconfigured to provide service to Hayden Island, but not to Vancouver. (TriMet has provided me with preliminary information about the service changes and this information is subject to change.)
The following chart lists estimated peak-hour travel times (based on the nearest departure to 5pm from available schedules, also see table footnotes) between various origins/destinations using different travel methods.
| Origin/Destination | MAX Yellow Line | Original #5 Bus1 | Current #6 Bus – Full Route | MAX / #6 Combo – Transfer @ Lombard2 | C-Tran/MAX Combo – May – Transfer @ Delta Park3 |
| Downtown Portland4 / Lombard | 24 min | 29 min | 39 min | — | — |
| Rose Quarter Area5 / Lombard | 13 min | 17 min | 25 min | — | — |
| Downtown Portland / Jantzen Beach | — | 38 min | 51 min | 48 min | — |
| Downtown Portland / Downtown Vancouver | — | 46 min | 59 min | 56 min | 45 min |
| Rose Quarter Area / Jantzen Beach | — | 26 min | 37 min | 37 min | — |
1Based on Line 5 schedule published September 3, 2000.
2Includes 12 minutes transfer waiting time, apparently the worst-case scheduled wait for this peak period.
3C-Tran Route #44 was used for this table… Routes 41 and 47 also serve Delta Park as of May but only on a couple of runs each day. Travel time includes approx. 8 minutes transfer waiting time.
4The following “Downtown” starting points were used based on the printed schedules: MAX – Pioneer Courthouse Square; #5 – SW 6th & Salmon; #6 SW Columbia between 5th and 4th less 2 minutes estimated offset (based on TriMet online trip planner results) to get closer to other starting points.
5“Rose Quarter Area” for the #6 is NE Grand & NE Pacific.
As can be seen from the table, for trips along the route common to both MAX and the original #5, travel times have decreased by up to 5 minutes (20%) for Downtown-to-Lombard and 4 minutes (30%) for Rose Quarter-to-Lombard.
However, for riders who regularly go to Jantzen Beach or Vancouver, the trip times via the #6 bus are worse than the old #5, depending on whether it is taken as a direct route from downtown, or a transfer is involved — Worst case: 13 minutes (28%) longer Downtown-to-Vancouver (now a full hour), or 11 minutes (42%) for east-side trips. In the best case, where transfers between MAX and the #6 align perfectly, travel times can be competitive with the old #5, but the likelihood of routinely making such great connections is low.
The new C-Tran connecting service appears to actually improve travel times over the original #5, however this is only true for trips where the transfer wait time aligns well. C-Tran only runs service half-hourly, and there is no mid-day service. A worst-case trip of just missing your transfer and waiting 29 minutes for the next departure clocks in at a whopping 66 minutes… 7 minutes worse than the current #6 and 20 minutes worse than the old #5. On the other hand, a perfect alignment of an arriving MAX train with a departing C-Tran bus 1 minute later results in a travel time of 38 minutes, shaving 8 minutes off of the old #5’s schedule, but it would be unwise to plan a trip around such tight margins. It should also be noted that southbound riders from Vancouver do not face as much of a time penalty for missed transfers because MAX runs 3X more often than C-Tran.
In September, C-Tran service, based on preliminary information, will increase to 15 minutes, which will should make the average trip time to Vancouver better than the #5 most of the day, but service to Jantzen beach (served by the #6) will be mostly unchanged.
Another factor to consider is the average wait time for someone wishing to travel without consulting a schedule. At peak times, the original #5 bus departed downtown every 7.5 minutes (8 departures between 4:30pm and 5:30pm), for an average wait time of 3.75 minutes. The Yellow Line now departs every 10 minutes in the same time period, for an average wait time of 5 minutes. This means an increase in average wait times of 1.25 minutes for the casual rider.
Clearly, the changes in travel time, positive and negative, have created winners and losers… The next section on ridership attempts to quantify just how many riders fall into each category.
Ridership, Part 1: Hayden Island / Vancouver
As shown above, riders going to Hayden Island and Vancouver face generally longer travel times than before MAX (except for Vancouver riders whose schedules align well with the new C-Tran service).
The question therefore is how many riders’ trips are made longer by this arrangement vs. how many non-Jantzen/Vancouver rider’s trips are improved by MAX.
The following table is based on average weekday boarding data provided by TriMet for the #5 bus’s highest ridership quarter:
| Original #5 Bus Route Segment | Ons | Offs | Total Ons & Offs |
| Vancouver | 902 (12.4% of ons) | 895 (12.5% of offs) | 1,797 (12.5% of ons & offs) |
| Hayden Island | 886 (12.2% of ons) | 881 (12.3% of offs) | 1,767 (12.2% of ons & offs) |
| All Other Stops6 | 5,467 (75.4% of ons) | 5,397 (75.2% of offs) | 10,864 (75.3% of ons & offs) |
| Total | 7,255 | 7,173 | 14,428 |
6Based on Line 5 per-stop boarding counts, Fall 2000, excluding stops south of Salmon so that included downtown stops are similar to areas served by the current Yellow Line.
At first glance it appears that up to 24.7% of #5 riders face longer trips today. However, a portion of the above boardings/alightings are for trips between Hayden Island and Vancouver. Such trips are served with a similar schedule today by the #6, will be served by frequent C-Tran service in the future, and thus should be excluded from the comparison. This exclusion of “unharmed” riders can be determined by removing northbound Hayden Island boardings and southbound Hayden Island alightings from the totals, and placing those values into a separate category:
| Original #5 Bus Route Segment | Total Ons & Offs | Adjustments for Local Vancouver/Hayden Island Trips | Adjusted Total Ons & Offs |
| Vancouver | 1,797 (12.5%) | Southbound Offs: -196 | 1,601 (11.1%) |
| Hayden Island | 1,767 (12.2%) | Northbound Ons: -261 | 1,506 (10.4%) |
| Local Vancouver/Hayden Island | — | +457 | 457 (3.2%) |
| All Other Stops | 10,864 (75.3%) | — | 10,864 (75.3%) |
| Total | 14,428 | — | 14,428 |
From the above table we can see that 75.3% of existing #5 riders saw a trip time improvement after MAX opened, while 21.5% saw trip times lengthen (or saw increased uncertainty due to transfers). The 3.2% of riders who travelled between Hayden Island and Vancouver saw no major change.
Where did the #5 Vancouver/Hayden Island riders go? After the #5 was replaced by MAX, the #6 route was changed to add service across the Columbia.
Counts on the #6 (Fall ’06) show comparable boardings to the #5 (Fall ’00):
| Route Segment | #5 Boardings | #6 Boardings |
| Vancouver | 902 | 957 |
| Hayden Island | 886 | 596 |
| Totals | 1,470 | 1,553 |
This suggests that the Vancouver riders, despite the longer travel times, did not elect to switch to another mode of travel, however some Hayden Island riders may have been lost. (Besides trip times, reasons could also include economic, employer incentives, parking, car availability, ability or desire to drive, etc.)
What about with regard to new ridership? The latest Winter, 2007 averages for the Yellow Line show 13,040 weekday boardings (a gain of 80% over the complete #5 ridership, and gain of 138% over the corridor common to both lines. That could put the percentage of people with longer trip times vs. the people benefitting from MAX in the 11% range, depending on who the new riders are and the nature of the new trips.
But just how are those new MAX riders accounted for? Are they all from Fareless Square? The next section attempts to answer some questions about current Yellow Line ridership.
Ridership, Part 2: A Look at Where People Board
Some critics have questioned whether the increase in Yellow Line ridership can be attributed to boardings/alightings occurring within the downtown Fareless Square area. Downtown, the Yellow Line shares trackage with the current Red and Blue lines, and if the criticisms are true, such service could possibly have been provided by simply increasing the number of Red or Blue line trains. (In 2009 when the transit mall reopens, the Yellow Line will shift to a North-South mall alignment, sharing tracks with the new Green Line.)
The following table explores where people boarded the #5 bus vs. where people now board the Yellow Line (where the routes were common), along with the total number of riders in each segment. I’ve put the Rose Quarter TC station outside the list of downtown Fareless Square stops, even though it technically is a fareless stop as well. The reason for this is the assumption that Yellow Line boardings at the Rose Quarter are mostly for the purpose of making transfers in the Transit Center… the primary destinations in the area (Rose Garden Arena, Memorial Coliseum, Oregon Convention Center) would only generate significant Fareless Square traffic during events, and only for riders originating from downtown. However, this Rose Quarter data is listed as its own line item so that readers can make their own determination.
| Route Segment | Yellow Line Boardings | #5 Bus Boardings |
| Downtown | 4,550 (38%) | 1,661 (30%) |
| Rose Quarter TC | 1,285 (11%) | 880 (16%) |
| Remaining N. Portland Stops | 6,028 (51%) | 2,926 (54%) |
| Totals | 11,863 (100%) | 5,467 (100%) |
The above table addresses one aspect: The ridership growth on the Yellow Line is distributed roughly proportionately across the entire line, although of course the Hayden Island and Vancouver Ridership dropped to zero (much of this ridership was shifted to the #6 line). The segment entirely outside fareless square maintains over 50% of the boardings.
But still, just how many Yellow Line rides are fareless? Fortunately, it is not difficult to arrive at an answer… Unlike the Red and Blue lines, the Yellow Line terminates within Fareless Square and requires all riders to deboard at the end of the line.
For inbound trains, we can count all downtown boardings as fareless (riders must deboard somewhere within Fareless Square) and compare with total alightings. For outbound trains, we can count all downtown alightings… by definition these riders got on the train in Fareless Square. The following list breaks it down, again under the assumption that most Rose Quarter boardings are in fact transfers.
- Downtown Outbound Boardings: 3,596
- Downtown Outbound Alightings: 819 (22.7%)
- Downtown Inbound Alightings: 3,731
- Downtown Inbound Boardings: 954 (25.6%)
This tells is that approximately one quarter of all downtown boardings/alightings are truly fareless, or less than 10% of the total Yellow Line ridership. Clearly, the bulk of the ridership growth has not come from the downtown portion of Fareless Square.
But what about the Rose Quarter? For argument’s sake, let’s assume that all boardings/alightings at the Rose Quarter station which could possibly be fareless are in fact fareless. For inbound trains, this means all Rose Quarter boardings, and for outbound trains, this means all Rose Quarter alightings. Here’s the data for those two values:
- Rose Quarter Inbound Boardings: 116
- Rose Quarter Outbound Alightings: 386
Clearly only a relative few riders are taking advantage of free Yellow Line trips to/from downtown and the Rose Quarter. At the very, very most, assuming none of these riders transfer to a bus, they represent 4.2% of the total ridership. Worst-case (the term “worst”, of course, assumes you believe legal fareless riders are a bad thing), fareless riders make up about 14% of all Yellow Line ridership, but if the Rose Quarter rider profile is in keeping with downtown percentages, the total figure is lower, closer to 10%-11%.
Ridership, Part 3: The Weekend
TriMet, compared to other transit agencies, has a higher rate of weekend ridership. Does adding light rail to a corridor significantly boost this weekend ridership?
The following table compares the ratio of weekday to weekend ridership for the #5 bus and the Yellow Line:
| Line | Weekday Boardings | Saturday Boardings | Saturday Ratio | Sunday Boardings | Sunday Ratio |
| #5 Bus (Fall 2000, All Stops) | 7,314 | 5,916 | 81% | 4,260 | 58% |
| Yellow Line (Fall, 2006) | 11,863 | 10,663 | 90% | 6,920 | 58% |
| Yellow Line (Winter, 2007) | 13,040 | 10,660 | 82% | 6,850 | 52% |
I’ve included two sets of numbers for the Yellow Line, one from Fall and one from Winter. The numbers available thus far may indicate that weekend ridership is weather-sensitive. The Winter weekend MAX ridership proportions are about the same as the #5 bus in the fall, but the fall MAX ridership for Saturdays is higher, within 90% of normal weekday boardings.
Conclusions
Based on the data and analysis above, the following statements can be said about the Yellow Line:
- Travel times improved by 20-30% for the corridor served.
- 21.5% of the original #5 bus riders saw an increase in travel time and/or were inconvenienced by transfers.
- 3.2% of bus riders saw no significant change (rides purely between Jantzen Beach / Vancouver)
- Most (75.3%) bus riders benefitted from the decrease in travel time.
- The increased travel times for some riders did not necessarily lead to the loss of those riders.
- The majority of the new Yellow Line ridership is not caused by Fareless Square
- Between 10% and 14% of Yellow Line rides are fareless.
- Utilization of the Yellow Line by place-of-boarding is roughly proportionate to the original #5.
- Weekend ridership may indicate light rail boosts Saturday performance, but less so on Sunday.
Sources
September 3, 2000 Line 5 Schedule (Adobe Acrobat .PDF)
Fall, 2000 Line 5 Weekday Ridership (Adobe Acrobat .PDF)
Fall, 2000 Line 5 Saturday Ridership (Adobe Acrobat .PDF)
Fall, 2000 Line 5 Sunday Ridership (Adobe Acrobat .PDF)
Fall, 2004 Line 6 and Yellow Line Weekday Ridership (Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet .XLS)
Fall, 2006 Line 6 and Yellow Line Weekday Ridership (Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet .XLS)
Winter, 2007 Yellow Line Ridership Summary (Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet .XLS)
C-Tran Route 44 Map / Schedule, May 2007 (Adobe Acrobat .PDF)
Line 6 Map, May 2007 (Adobe Acrobat .PDF)
Line 6 Schedule – To Portland, May 2007 (Adobe Acrobat .PDF)
Line 6 Schedule – To Vancouver, May 2007 (Adobe Acrobat .PDF)
Yellow Line Schedule – To Expo Center, May 2007 (Adobe Acrobat .PDF)
58 responses to “Dispatches from the Yellow Line (Updated)”
Bob R:
Amazing work, thanks very much for taking the time to put that together.
Yes, great work.
This information is completely consistent with the point I was trying to make a few weeks ago.
Thanks for the compliments. :-)
– Bob R.
Bob –
Great job. There has never really been any doubt that the Yellow Line has been a success, but perhaps this will silence a few of the critics. Perhaps not…
yea, good work. as an inner N portland resident, this confirms my experience with the yellow line.
it will be interesting to look at these figures again in about 5 years when the density of the neighborhood changes.
if only there was a way to have a “control”!
You should add Amtrak travel times and average car trip times. :)
Both of those, are generally less than 20 minutes from PDX to Vancouver.
Amtrak does it in 14-15 minutes under good traffic conditions, an auto will do it in about 12-14 minutes in good traffic conditions (which are rare these days) and following the speed limit.
Not that I’m trying to change the topic, but the #5, #6, and Interstate MAX are bad examples of LRT and bus alternatives. Both or morbidly slow compared to their respective alternatives.
I’d be much happier if Yellow Line/#5/#6 operated in a more similar fashion to Express busses or blue line east/west operations.
The major complaint in this area, and prevention of ridership for thousands of people is simply, transit takes too long. The Yellow Line/#5/#6 are the prime examples of the exact problem.
I do however enjoy the fact that the Yellow Line service is there, and slowly but surely the area is gentrifying nicely. As long as similar things don’t occur to the Gresham MAX line then the Yellow Line will be slow, but it’ll at least be as civil as the west side line.
Most of the criticisms of the yellow line seemed to come from people that had never actually ridden it, so I’ve always had a hard time taking them seriously, but good job.
Wow, I think it would be faster to ride a bike than to ride on Transit! What is the average bike travel time from DT PDX to DT Vancouver?
Greg:
I bike commute in the summer when it’s nice out, it takes me about 25 minutes to bike from SW 6th and Alder to my home in Sellwood, it takes me about 35 minutes to drive home when I drive in the winter. Does that mean that I should never drive? Or perhaps we can conclude that riding a bike is better than driving and riding transit.
With traffic the way it is during rush hour in downtown PDX you can actually bike a lot of places faster than you drive. FWIW the ride from downtown PDX to Vancouver isn’t particularly pleasant (I’ve only done it once, but afterwards I didn’t want to do it again).
“FWIW the ride from downtown PDX to Vancouver isn’t particularly pleasant (I’ve only done it once, but afterwards I didn’t want to do it again”
I can’t imagine it would be. I just don’t understand why all this obsession about building a MAX yellow into Vancouver – why don’t they just put a commuter train between Union Station and DT Vancouver and let people bring their bikes on that train? The tracks are already built and you wouldn’t have to stop every 2-3 blocks on your ride between Vancouver and Portland.
Question is,
Is the ridership attributed towards the train (MAX light rail vehicle), or is it attributed towards the factors that could have been implemented without MAX?
For example:
Enhanced bus stops/MAX platforms,
Re-development (including the expansion/remodeling of the Kaiser Permenante complex) that could have existed without any transit investment,
Security (both security guards and closed circuit TV),
More prominent waiting areas (i.e. platforms located in open, well-lit areas, instead of unsecure areas with hidden spaces, in building shadows, or other undesirable locations),
And, how much of the impact was simply be adding capacity (how many people were turned away due to overcrowded busses), or unreliable busses, or busses that lacked air conditioning?
It’s amazing that TriMet finally came through and published actual numbers, although TriMet needs to step up and publish this kind of results for each and every line so that the public can make informed decisions (yes, even if that means proving that some of TriMet’s bus routes actually are more successful than MAX.) However as TriMet shows zero interest in making incremental improvements to the bus system other than fancy schmantsy bus stop signs (OK, a few new bus shelters were added) it is no wonder that bus service continues to languish while MAX service is actually given a chance to succeed by TriMet’s complete bias towards rail based service.
As I poured over TriMet’s TIP, my belief is clearly underscored by the amount of spending TriMet puts out towards rail improvements (38.55% of TriMet’s total budget) but capital improvements systemwide only acounts for 4% of the budget.
So, I-MAX fans, congratulations. Now let’s take some lessons that TriMet has learned on how to build ridership, and apply it to the 65% of riders that ride the bus. More, better and bigger shelters. Transit Tracker signs. Air conditioning on 100% of the fleet. More capacity – articulated, low-floor busses on busy routes, and 40′ low floor busses on the remaining routes. Neighborhood bus routes, so that more people can use transit for 100% of their trip. Increased service (even up to 10 minute intervals, or in some cases less). More bus lanes – especially on Powell, Barbur, McLoughlin, and TV Highway. Frequent Service beginning at 5:30 AM and continuing until 11:00 PM. And service throughout TriMet’s service territory.
Then, when TriMet actually improves ridership on the languishing bus routes, there will be sufficient demand to talk about more MAX routes (or Streetcar, in the inner city). TriMet has been successful at building ridership in North Portland, why can’t it do the same elsewhere?
I just don’t understand why all this obsession about building a MAX yellow into Vancouver – why don’t they just put a commuter train between Union Station and DT Vancouver and let people bring their bikes on that train? The tracks are already built and you wouldn’t have to stop every 2-3 blocks on your ride between Vancouver and Portland.
Greg –
One big reason is that not all Vancouver riders are destined for downtown Portland… they go to destinations throughout N. Portland. Look at the number of boardings/alightings at N. Lombard, for example.
MAX represents a compromise between true “express” service and slower every-2-block bus service. It is true that an express from Vancouver to Downtown (via rail or road) may be faster, but it will serve far fewer riders at a higher cost of operation per ride.
Also, the Yellow Line does not stop every 2-3 blocks, it has stations every 5-8 blocks, with dedicated ROW and signal preemption.
The rush hour travel times on the east side are very competitive, but the line does not go to Hayden Island or Vancouver, which is a limitation. But for nearly 80% of the riders, the trip is a major, measurable improvement over the prior bus line.
– Bob R.
Question is, is the ridership attributed towards the train (MAX light rail vehicle), or is it attributed towards the factors that could have been implemented without MAX?
Service could have been duplicated by running articulated buses (about twice to three times as often as MAX at peak hour to meet capacity needs), dedicated ROW including a concrete trackway, signal preemption, covered stations, fare machines, transit tracker displays, numerous sidewalk and crossing improvements, etc., etc., etc., and a nearly mile-long viaduct from Denver Ave. to Delta Park.
But, you’d be approaching the cost of light rail. Anything short of that wouldn’t match the travel times, or the capacity, or dare I say, the character of light rail.
As for TriMet “finally publishing” the numbers, all I had to do was ask for them.
– Bob R.
I will also say, nice job. And point out that the Yellow line could probably be doing even better if it went 55 MPH instead of 20-35 and served areas east of I-5. See essay
*dedicated ROW including a concrete trackway: Some people have argued for just striping–making one set of Interstate Ave lanes for buses only.
*Taking out 2 of every 3 stops can be a good or (especially for elderly/disabled) bad thing.
*Does/will C-Tran serve Hayden Island? Bypassing it may provide a faster thru trip, but making Van-Isl. riders go all the way down to Delta Park *and* wait/transfer sounds harsh.
*In theory, you might get a quicker trip/shorter transfer on MAX/6 if you change at Kenton (MAX is direct, non-stop from Lombard)
*I’ve biked home from Hayden Island to downtown on Interstate (even where there’s no bike lanes, it wasn’t that bad). I left Kenton at the same time as a train, I would usually see the next train near Rose Quarter.
*It looks like Line 5 already had heavy use at Killingsworth and Lombard.
*why can’t it do the same elsewhere: Not to jump the gun, but vs. suburbs, NoPo has a relatively friendly pedestrian (transit rider) environment.
Some people have argued for just striping–making one set of Interstate Ave lanes for buses only.
True, but this would lead to an increasingly bumpy ride as the asphalt deteriorated, especially in station areas.
I included a concrete trackway in my list as this what is needed to make “BRT” service more equivalent to rail service. Eugene, for example, has a concrete BRT “trackway” along much of their busway.
Deteriorated, bumpy asphalt was a frequent problem in the transit mall. In the new transit mall, you’ll see a lot more concrete, especially in bus stop areas. (But not everywhere… one of the original proposals was for all-concrete transitway, but for budget reasons such treatments will be limited to selected areas of the mall.)
– Bob R.
Does/will C-Tran serve Hayden Island? Bypassing it may provide a faster thru trip, but making Van-Isl. riders go all the way down to Delta Park *and* wait/transfer sounds harsh.
It appears that in September C-Tran will have express or limited stop routes which serve Hayden Island – to – Vancouver and Delta Park – to – Vancouver. It is not clear from the press releases I have read if there will be Delta Park to Hayden Island service in addition to the #6’s Lombard to Hayden Island service.
– Bob R.
Speaking of BRT, an article in today’s Register Guard on traffic collisions along the EmX BRT system indicates that BRT systems can experience the same kinds of growing pains that LRT systems in some cities have experienced.
The article mentions that the Los Angeles Orange Line BRT has become notorious for accidents and is called by the locals “Orange Crush”… buses are now limited to 10mph when traveling through intersections.
Here is a link to a photo essay on a light rail advocacy web site detailing the problems with BRT systems such as the Orange Line. Note that the site is an advocacy site and that I do not necessarily agree with everything there. The photo at the bottom of the page shows some of the problems of a non-concrete transitway.
– Bob R.
“One big reason is that not all Vancouver riders are destined for downtown Portland… ”
Well it looks like a significant number of riders DO though. Why should they have to go on the “semi-Express” MAX or whatever you want to call it if they just want to get from Point A to Point B. Has anyone even thought to consider such a run using the existing tracks? I just don’t understand why they can build a Beaverton – Wilsonville line and not think of a Vancouver – Portland one, especially when the infrastructure is already there. They could probably buy some old diesel trains and build a parking structure in vancouver so people could park and get on the train to go downtown. I just don’t know why this isn’t even being entertained – I have never heard anyone mention it before.
I just don’t know why this isn’t even being entertained – I have never heard anyone mention it before.
I know that several people have mentioned such ideas here before, but I’m not sure how much (if any) official attention is being paid to such ideas.
I do know that there is congestion along the existing freight tracks to Vancouver… it might be difficult to schedule more than a few runs.
Therein lies another thing to consider about transit: The Yellow Line runs at least every 15 minutes most of the day. While it might be possible to use an alternate rail route to provide service from downtown to Vancouver, such runs would be limited in departure times.
Although the individual trip might save you time, having to schedule your day around that departure (and the risk of missing it) creates problems of its own.
Regardless of the solution which is finally chosen (BRT, express buses, commuter rail, extending MAX), Clark County and Vancouver are going to have a say in the matter before anything substantial changes.
– Bob R.
Greg: There’s a lot to be said for a Vancouver-PDX commuter train similar to what we’re getting between Wilsonville and Beaverton. I’d be fully behind it if we could guarantee that it could stay on schedule. Like Bob R. I assume that the problem is due to heavy freight usage, however at the very least I think this option should be examined by Trimet.
Hi Bob,
I could be wrong but I thought they already turned it down twice at the ballot. What has changed since that would make you think they would be in support of it?
They always cite “freight train congestion” whenever these ideas come up. How big of a problem is this congestion REALLY? They have the entire freight system centrally controlled – wouldn’t they know for DAYS, WEEKS, MONTHS in advance of when a freight train was scheduled to go through at a certain time? Granted there can be derailments but if they really plan as efficiently as they claim they do then this shouldn’t be a problem should it? Sure I am somewhat ignorant maybe someone who has or is working for the the freight train companies could comment?
I could be wrong but I thought they already turned it down twice at the ballot. What has changed since that would make you think they would be in support of it?
A few things have changed… whether it will be enough to make a difference, I don’t know, but:
1. The Yellow Line now exists… Vancouver-area residents have a better idea of what they can tie into.
2. Vancouver (which is not all of Clark County, of course) has a pro-rail mayor and a pro-rail group has formed among some downtown Vancouver businesses.
3. The Columbia River Crossing process includes Light Rail as a study option. The CRC proposal has received a number of criticisms, well documented on PortlandTransport, but its existence does increase the likelihood of light rail happening in some form.
Incidentally, I should add that the idea of running a commuter train to Vancouver from Union Station in Portland will make a lot more sense after the new Transit Mall opens in 2009, as there will be relatively convenient connections to light rail from Union Station.
– Bob R.
Greg:
As someone who used to ride Amtrak across the country 4+ times a year I can tell you that freight congestion is real and it’s a bitch. As I’m sure you’re aware Amtrak doesn’t have priority on the rails it runs on, which means that if a freight train is running off schedule the (presumably on schedule) train has to get out of the way to allow it through. Over the course of 1700 miles this sometimes meant as much as a 24 hour delay for me. I’m not saying that PDX – Vancouver would be significantly delayed, just that even a 10 minute delay would seriously degrade people’s trust in the service when trying to plan a commute to work. There’s no sense in setting up the service unless we get guarantees that we can run the trains as scheduled.
The question of commuter rail from Washington has been studied and there was also a study of freight train congestion in the Portland region. There are investments needed just to relieve future freight congestion. And its important to remember the freight tracks, including most river crossings, are privately owned. The owners get to set priorities on how they are used. So the obvious question with commuter rail is “what’s in it for them?”
So the obvious question with commuter rail is “what’s in it for them?”
Just ask WSDOT and BNSF, “What’s in it for them” when it comes to Amtrak Cascades and Sound Transit operating over BNSF rails. Seems to work for them; in fact BNSF crews operate the Sounder trains, and Amtrak added a fourth SEA-PDX round trip last year.
Has anyone at Metro/TriMet gone to the railroads? (My guess is no.) Besides, are all of those Metro folks who are taking that taxpayer funded vacation to Vancouver, BC going to experience the West Coast Express? Or are they going to conveniently gloss over it too?
BTW, I did ask TriMet for a copy of the 2007 proposed budget, the number of customer complaints regarding bus service at PSU that is causing TriMet to reduce bus service, and ridership on the 12 line.
So far my requests to the Customer Comment line have gone, well, unanswered. So much for inviting public participation in a democracy.
Meanwhile, the answer to Ross’ questions can be found at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/rail. Too bad TriMet can’t be as open and honest. At one webpage, I can find information about the equipment used (TriMet removed that information from their website), ridership information (not published on TriMet’s website), financial data (again not on TriMet’s website), and specific project-level data to improve the system (it can be found on TriMet’s website, but many pieces of information is conveniently missing.)
BTW, what about this project? http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Rail/PNWRC_Vancouver/ Or this one? http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Rail/PNWRC_PtDefiance/
It seems to be a common theme here – I doubt the transportation planners can get anything right these days – freeways are in a shambles, train tracks are crumbling, etc… Why do they spend so much money in just studying these problems without implementing them or implementing them quickly? It seems that in the past the USA got projects done efficiently without so much ADO as they do now. Why do we even have the train at all if it can’t perform reliably? (just askin, not trying to be cynical)
Thank you Mr. Richardson for that excellent (and, IMO, unbiased) report!
Just wanted to chime in with a few things:
C-TRAN service to Vanport TC just came on board May 14th 2007 (two weeks ago). 44 is the new 4th Plain Limited, 41 replaces 114 to Camas/Washougal, and 47 replaces 173 to Battle Ground and the formerly separate service to Yacolt. 44 runs every 30 minutes rush-hour weekdays only; 41 and 47 run 1x/day – Southbound to Delta Park in AM; Northbound to their destination in PM. (Schedules for all routes can be found on C-TRAN.com.)
Jason, to answer these questions:
Does/will C-Tran serve Hayden Island? Bypassing it may provide a faster thru trip, but making Van-Isl. riders go all the way down to Delta Park *and* wait/transfer sounds harsh.
44 will run express from Delta Park directly to Downtown Vancouver and beyond. In September, 4-Fourth Plain will be extended to serve both Delta Park and Hayden Island. This is on the C-TRAN website under the “Designing the Future – September service change preview” link.
In theory, you might get a quicker trip/shorter transfer on MAX/6 if you change at Kenton (MAX is direct, non-stop from Lombard)
Maybe true in theory, but reality is TriMet removed the bus stops close to the Kenton MAX station, citing safety issues. It’s possible that you can be riding the 6, see MAX run parallel to the bus as it travels over the Vanport Bridge, and know that you’ll never catch that train at Kenton (or at all; takes more time for 6 to get to Lombard TC than it does for MAX) because the closest 6 stop is at McClellan.
Your comparisons between the #5 bus and IMAX are not valid. THIS WAS NOT THE NORMAL BUS SERVICE. You are using the schedules and ridership figures for the bus service during the MAX construction period, when the bus service was compromised due to use of only one lane and construction work. This greatly increased travel times and probably drove a lot of riders away.
When IMAX construction was about to begin the #5 was uncoupled from the Capitol Highway service to PCC Sylvania because the schedules were going to get all messed up.
I remember using the #5 during early 2001 for some time, when #5 service was still NORMAL, and was quite satisfied. As I remember, #5 travel times were quite favorable in comparison to MAX. Now, in 2003, during MAX construction I took a ride on the #5 late one afternoon from Interstate and Lombard to downtown. Boy, was that slow! Of course that would look bad compared to MAX.
So, how about producing some pre-construction schedules from 2000-2001 so we can see what the REAL story is about #5 vs. MAX?
Nick –
In several past instances over the years on PortlandTransport, I have asked if anyone here had old copies of schedules from the #5. Nobody responded.
From what I understand, TriMet had to do some digging to find even the one old schedule they did send me, which they had to scan into a PDF. I’ll ask again if they had anything older, but that’s what I had to work with.
If you have such a schedule, I’d be happy to run the numbers again for comparison’s sake.
– Bob R.
OK, I’ll go to the Central Library this week to see what I can find. I have been curious about this topic for a while now.
The funny thing is, when I visited Portland in 1997 (checking it out for relocation) I bought a complete schedule book, but threw it away just before my move here, figuring I would buy a new one when I got here. It’s a shame, because it would have showed all the pre-Blue and Yellow line bus service, before the changes.
BTW, the reason my posts showed up multiple times is because I was getting “server errors” when I tried to post, but it looks like the posts hit anyway.
Bob R. Says:
Nick –
In several past instances over the years on PortlandTransport, I have asked if anyone here had old copies of schedules from the #5. Nobody responded.
Where I am working currently, it is no schedule, but I did find a Tri-met map dated from what I would suspect is pre-west side MAX, so somewhere between 87′ – 91′ or so.
I was dumbfounded to see how many bus lines where available for north Portland and can DEFINITELY see why some complain so feverishly about the removed bus service from the north east areas. The interstate ave area had bus service all over the place, I do however, ponder what the frequency and availability of those buses where.
If the service was similar to something like the #44 or even #17, where it fades quickly after the primary hours I can see why it did little to incur development or why Tri-met was motivated to keep it when they have something like the yellow line to replace it with.
Hopefully someone somewhere can dig up one of those schedules. It kind of makes me want to go and get schedules from Tri-met and start poly-bagging them (the things people keep comic books in) so they don’t degrade and can easily be viewed 10-20-30 or 200 years from now. :) If only I could live long enough to see how things turn out then… or if the country is still even in one piece then! :o
When I was as a tourist in Portland in 1993 I bought a Trimet-Guide that I still own. So I can give you some Informations about the Bus #5.
There were two lines under this number. The regular line run every 15 minutes from 5:00 to midnight. An example schedule:
Travel times Vancouver to Oak varied from about 25 to 35 minutes before 8:00, then they were constantly 30 minutes.
There were also express buses C-TRAN Lines 5 and 134 operating rush hour I-5 express service.
12 trips started between 6:10 and 8:20 from Salmon Creek Park & Ride, another 12 trips between 6:02 and 8:50 from Vancouver TC.
I hope, this helps a bit. Please excuse my english faults. Best regards from Darmstadt, Germany.
Stephan
Thanks Bob for your analysis of the Yellow Line. I look forward to your report on the pedestrian environment.
I was on the CAC for this project and am a 100% fan. I used to ride the old 5 bus and there is simply no comparison regarding comfort, reliability, speed, etc.
I’ll save some more comments on the project, but will note that it was built to go to Vancouver. When that happens, ridership will be that much better. Also it is worth noting that all the old 5 service hours when to other N. Portland bus lines, 75, 6 and 85 Swan Island among others; the latter went from 9 hours/day to 27 hours. The 85 now carries 500 riders per day, up from 200 prior to the service upgrade.
A quick update –
TriMet has scanned for me a copy of the Line 5 schedule from September, 2000, prior to the start of Yellow Line construction. They are attempting to come up with ridership figures from near that time period as well.
At first glance, using the 5pm weekday outbound figures I used for the main comparisons in this post, the 2000 Line 5 travel times are about 3 minutes faster across the board.
I’ll update the entire article to reflect those differences — hopefully sometime next week.
– Bob R.
However as TriMet shows zero interest in making incremental improvements to the bus system other than fancy schmantsy bus stop signs (OK, a few new bus shelters were added) it is no wonder that bus service continues to languish while MAX service is actually given a chance to succeed by TriMet’s complete bias towards rail based service.
Erik – You already found it, but I thought others might like to know about an article on a ballot measure to fund future TriMet and Metro bus service and transportation plans in today’s Portland Tribune.
– Bob R.
From the article….. “TriMet already has identified the first five lines for increased service, including popular routes to downtown from Beaverton, [B]Tualatin[/B], Gresham and Southeast Portland.”
But wait… I thought TriMet and Metro hated Tualatin.
Yes, the line 76 is going frequent service.
Problem is, 76 serves a very small portion of Tualatin, and only serves Bridgeport, City Hall, Fred Meyer, and the residental/business center along Martinazzi to Meridian Park Hospital.
It does not serve any of the residential neighborhoods along Boones Ferry Road or Tualatin Road, east/north of the Hospital, or the business center along Tualatin-Sherwood Road. Very few homes are within walking distance of the 76 line.
In other words, imagine that downtown Portland were served only by the 77 line – and that’s it. Doesn’t make sense for Portland, but that’s what Tualatin gets for bus “service”. So, how does one who wants to be car-free get to Commuter Rail?
On Swan Island we got the 85 in 1995 which provides direct service to MAX at the Rose Quarter after a few years of letters, petitions and pleas. The idea actually came from Scheduling and was opposed by Planning, but we pushed it thru the Board. Service hours tripled when the Yellow Line opened in 2004, and it now averages about 20 rides per hour, 500/day.
The Tualatin Chamber runs a shuttle with Job Access money into the industrial area…maybe that can be expanded to serve other areas and connect to Commuter Rail.
In the end without residential and employment density, one is doomed to poor transit service as the cost to provide it is prohibitive, and it much compete for resources with lines (ie 14 Hawthorne) that have more riders than seats even with frequent service.
If you want to be car-free, you have to live where it makes sense to do so. Living in the middle of a low-density, residential-only area does not make sense (whether it’s Tualatin, Gresham, Hillsboro, West Linn, wherever) if you’re trying to live a car-free life.
Interesting that Tualatin is a “residential-only” area.
Let’s see what businesses are in Tualatin:
According to the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department, Tualatin has 162 manufacturing businesses (not employees, but businesses) – or one out of five manufacturing businesses in Washington County.
The five largest employers are:
Meridian Park Hospital (823 employees)
UPS (547 employees)
GE Security (500 employees)
Tualatin-Tigard School District (415 employees in Tualatin)
Novellus Systems (400 employees)
Of the five largest employers in Tualatin, only ONE (Meridian Park Hospital) has transit access. Tualatin High School has transit access but no other schools do.
So, how many jobs are located on the 14-Hawthorne bus line?
And why is it that people who want to live carfree must live downtown? Isn’t the role of public transit to transport people to and from where they want to live, work and play? Or is Portland’s “world-class planning” only for those that have the financial means to live downtown, and screw everyone else – especially those who are transit dependent? Granted, I do own a car, but only one car for our family (my wife drives). If the general consensus is that “Oh, you live in the suburbs, too bad” – then why do we even have a regional transit agency? Instead, TriMet should retract to becoming Portland Transit, and allow the other cities to promote themselves as the lower tax alternative to Portland.
(I think it’s because without the tax base of the suburbs, that MAX wouldn’t have been built, nor could MAX be operated.)
Erik,
Don’t forget Laika’s new studio campus opening in Tualatin next year. They’ll have several hundred employees also.
Of course you have businesses in Tualatin, nobody said you didn’t. And you don’t have to live downtown to be car-free. But you should expect that if you’re living in a low-density residential area (and be honest, a big chunk of Tualatin is just that), that you’re not going to have the same level of transit service as you would in a higher density, mixed use area like Hawthorne. If you’re thinking that Tualatin should have as many frequent bus lines and MAX service as close-in Portland, then I’m afraid you’re going to be perpetually disappointed.
So, how many jobs are located on the 14-Hawthorne bus line?
To point out the obvious, the 14 goes to Downtown Portland through the Central Eastside Industrial area.
The five largest employers are:
Transit doesn’t serve employers, it serves employment locations. School districts may have a lot of employees, but they are not all in the same place.
That said, Tualatin ought to have better transit service. The question is whether is should be higher on the list of regional priorities than it currently is. I don’t see much evidence that it should.
But I do think the region has not stepped up very well to the challenge of helping suburbs meet regional goals. There is a lot of talk about compact development and creating pedestrian and transit friendly neighborhoods and business districts. But there do not seem to be very many realistic models for accomplishing those objectives on any scale.
Lenny said:
“I used to ride the old 5 bus and there is simply no comparison regarding comfort, reliability, speed, etc.”
>>>> That’s funny, I was riding the #5 for a while in the spring of 2001, and to me MAX did not represent an overall improvement in service; in some ways, I feel the service was severely degraded (but that always seems to happen when a new rail line starts operating around here).
Transit doesn’t serve employers, it serves employment locations. School districts may have a lot of employees, but they are not all in the same place.
Then I suggest someone tell TriMet that EVERY BUS THAT SERVES PSU, OHSU AND THE VA MEDICAL CENTER be immediately abolished, because those routes SERVE EMPLOYERS, not employment locations!
Has anyone looked at an aerial map of Tualatin? I highly suggest you do so. Google Earth. http://www.google.com .
Now, on the left side of your screen, you can toggle city boundaries on and off. Turn them on.
Now look at Tualatin. Look at the industrial area – there’s a lot of undeveloped land that is being held in reserve; or business campuses that have land buffers (Intel does the same thing; so does Nike and Tektronix – and they all have bus (and in the case of Tektronix and Intel, MAX service too). Why is that a bad thing? In fact I recall someone complaining earlier that Portland was unfairly penalized for its “density” factor because of Forest Park (as well as Portland International Airport, Smith-Bybee Lakes, the Willamette River, and other undeveloped areas.)
Tualatin also has a substantial wetland that stretches from its western edge to its eastern edge. Should we, for the sake of increasing density, fill in that wetland? (A portion of it actually was filled in years ago, and now we know that doing so it’s such a hot idea. By the way, how’s Guild’s Lake doing?) What’s better, the environment, or density? In Portland, the answer is density. In Tualatin, the answer is the environment.
Of course, statistically that makes Tualatin look bad. It makes Tualatin look like it’s some town in the middle of Montana where everyone’s homes is on a five acre lot. Have any of you been to Tualatin? Anyone who owns a home on a five acre lot is not in Tualatin.
Look at the actual residential neighborhoods. They don’t look any different than anywhere else in the metro area. Look near the high school along Boones Ferry Road. Lots of density there. Look at Tualatin Road – lots of density (and several apartment complexes). Look northeast of the hospital, lots of density.
Lots of potential to add transit service.
There’s one thing – and only one thing – stopping it – TriMet.
If we are going to argue that Tualatin isn’t a regional priority, I can list numerous other areas that have plenty of transit and aren’t regional priorities, so given TriMet’s poor financial condition – should we eliminate that too? (At least TriMet admits that its Happy Valley bus is the worst performing route and it is being considered for elimination.) Is the South Shore bus a regional priority? Or the Garden Home bus, or the Hamilton bus? Or even the Vista or Hillside busses? Or Leahy Road? Or North Hillsboro?
I’m not talking a multi-million dollar investment in high capacity electrifed double-tracked mainline railroad (a.k.a. MAX). I’m talking about a $250,000 bus. Why is that so hard to ask for? If Gresham has the ability to veto a new local bus route for Tualatin, then what’s the point of any small community being a part of TriMet and Metro when four cities dictate everything?
Then I suggest someone tell TriMet that EVERY BUS THAT SERVES PSU, OHSU AND THE VA MEDICAL CENTER be immediately abolished, because those routes SERVE EMPLOYERS, not employment locations!
PSU, OHSU, and the VA aren’t an employment locations? That’s news to me.
– Bob R.
Erik has a good point: despite crying poverty, Trimet continues to operate many “marginal” bus lines, e.g. #s 18, 23, 25, 27, 36, 37, 39, and so on.
And don’t even get me started on the Wash. County feeder bus routes, which are designed to force-feed MAX instead of serving Wash. County.
Now, I think the debate should be: is everyone entitled to have a bus route within 1/4 mile of their house? I don’t drive, but I don’t think so.
For disabled people, there are the LIFT services.
Also, how come Sherwood has full time bus service to downtown Portland, while Tualitan does not?
Bob – Ross was trying to make a point that Transit doesn’t serve employers, it serves employment locations.
Apparently, if transit is not permitted to serve specific employers, than TriMet needs to swallow it’s own pill and abolish any route that essentially serves a single employer – which would include all of the express services to Marquam Hill, plus many PSU routes (since TriMet specifically states PSU is the largest transit generator).
I obiviously do not agree with Ross’s standpoint. Transit needs to go where people live, work and play – and that does include significant employers such as the above. However TriMet has neglected Tualatin, despite 25,000 residents and who-knows-how-many employers. Ross asserts that Tualatin is not an employment center; I provided point-blank facts to refute his claim. Obiviously Ross knows nothing about Tualatin, and I would encourage him to come out and visit. However he is looking through rose-colored glasses provided by TriMet; of course anyone who visits Tualatin using TriMet isn’t going to see the city; the only place TriMet can get you in Tualatin is along Martinazzi Avenue, to the hospital, Bridgeport Village, or along the very corner of Tualatin along 99W. In other words, few of the social or residential centers.
If TriMet treated Portland the same way, there would be a bus line from Sauvie Island to Vancouver (via the St. Johns Bridge and Rivergate), and a couple routes from Gateway TC to Vancouver (with one route that would serve the airport). There would be one express route that connects Vancouver to Milwaukie TC, via McLoughlin/Grand/MLK, but would not go downtown.)
Obiviously that is ridiculous to consider; however that is the actual state of transit service in Tualatin. Nearly 153,000 cars pass through Tualatin each day on I-5. Between 31,000 and 43,000 cars pass through Tualatin on 99W. 21,200 cars passed over the Tualatin River Bridge on Boones Ferry Road (also known as Oregon Highway 141), with another 9,000 near Norwood Road between Tualatin and Wilsonville. (Figures from ODOT 2005 Traffic Volume Tables.) And 30,000-40,000 cars use Tualatin-Sherwood Road (figures from Washington County Land Use & Transportation website.) Transit? Nick brought up an excellent point – anyone in Sherwood (which is half the size of Tualatin, and five miles further out) has all day service to downtown Portland. Tualatin residents must transfer at Tigard. Under some of the arguments presented against quality transit service, the line 12 should be immediately abolished south of King City.
If anyone wants to claim that Tualatin isn’t deserving of good quality transit (again, I am not stating MAX, I am just asking for good quality transit, but it appears that busses are somehow only for losers, drunks and Hispanics according to some other members of this forum), then please do us all a favor and do one of two things:
1. Visit Tualatin and see what this city is about,
2. Write your Metro and TriMet representatives and ask for them to remove Tualatin from their boundaries. That way Tualatin residents (like myself) will not have a voice in other transportation issues affecting TriMet and Metro, and TriMet/Metro won’t be hassled with actually having to provide services to this city. (Of course, you will also lose the considerable property and payroll tax revenue that we give you.)
Erik wrote: If anyone wants to claim that Tualatin isn’t deserving of good quality transit (again, I am not stating MAX, I am just asking for good quality transit, but it appears that busses are somehow only for losers, drunks and Hispanics according to some other members of this forum), then please do us all a favor and do one of two things:
I’ve asked you before for proof… please link to a pro-transit person here on this forum who expresses the views you describe.
From my perspective, every generally pro-transit person here is in favor of improved transit for Tualatin, but there is disagreement over how bad the current situation seems to be and what other projects should be completed first.
Regarding the strange argument about employment centers vs. specific employers, I must admit I don’t see much distinction. However, Marquam Hill is not a single employer, and PSU is not primarily an employment destination (most of the many transit users there are students), so your counter-examples don’t really apply.
Perhaps we can turn this into a more positive discussion: Can you identify, given some resources, where you would start to improve transit service in Tualatin given say 2 or 3 additional medium-frequency bus routes, operating half-hourly most of the day and 15-minutes at peak?
– Bob R.
Can we have a thread about Tualatin? It obviously must be very important because it keeps popping up in all the other threads, including this one about N Portland, the one last week about Milwaukee, etc, etc…
Maybe a rename for the blog, “Tualatin Transport”? ;)
Can you identify, given some resources, where you would start to improve transit service in Tualatin given say 2 or 3 additional medium-frequency bus routes, operating half-hourly most of the day and 15-minutes at peak?
Gladly.
1. Route connecting Tualatin with Sherwood via Tualatin-Sherwood Road.
2. Route from downtown Tualatin along Herman Road, returning on Leveton Street.
3. Route from downtown Tualatin along Tualatin Road, returning on Hazelbrook Avenue.
4. Eastside Loop, connecting Nyberg Woods, the eastern neighborhoods in Clackamas County, returning on Borland Road via Meridian Park Hospital.
5. Southerly line on Martinazzi, turning west to serve the Tualatin High School.
6. Boones Ferry Road service, currently served by the 96, needs to be frequent.
(Notice I didn’t mention Bridgeport, since it’s already served by the 36, 37 and 38 which travel to Lake Oswego, the 76 and 96, and SMART 201.)
It obviously must be very important because it keeps popping up in all the other threads
I’ll shut up about Tualatin when TriMet starts giving a hoot about treating all parts of their service territory equally and provides service everywhere.
When North Portland and Milwaukie get an unequal (higher) amount of service, yet we all pay the same in taxes, I have a problem with it.
Milwaukie does not need MAX until the rest of TriMet’s district has equal access to quality transit. Otherwise, Milwaukie can pay for MAX. Portland does not need Streetcar unless Portland is willing to pay for Streetcar. TriMet pays $4 million a year for Streetcar which is not a regional priority; that’s $4 million that is taken away from bus service. TriMet has raped the contingency fund to fund pet MAX projects, and has not considered adding any new bus service. (TriMet finally admitted, in a Portland Tribune article, that they might actually need to, but now they’re crying that they don’t have money. Well, DUH! They blew it on light rail and want voters (who turned down light rail several times) to pay for busses.)
Like I said, if Tualatin is a problem, you’re all welcome to tell TriMet and Metro to remove Tualatin from the district boundary. Just be prepared to say “goodbye” to the tax revenue.
I’ve asked you before for proof… please link to a pro-transit person here on this forum who expresses the views you describe.
Let’s see, Ross Williams, who continually espouses that Tualatin is low density and not a town center (although Metro says it is) and not an employment center (although there are thousands of jobs in Tualatin).
Ross is not pro-transit. Ross is pro-MAX. Unfortunately, TriMet is only 35% MAX, and 65% BUS.
This title of this forum is “Portland Transport”. Transport is not just Streetcar or MAX; otherwise maybe the title can be changed, so that those of us who care about all facets of transportation (including, God forbid, highways, streets and those pathetic things called busses) can find a more appropriate forum for our views, and leave this forum to be nothing but a Streetcar and MAX advocacy forum.
In line with what Erik said above, unfortunately, the vibes I get from this blog are that many, if not most, posters are advocating rail specifically, and not transit in general.
I aksed for specific proof and all I get in return is “vibes”. Nice.
– Bob R.
“Milwaukie does not need MAX until the rest of TriMet’s district has equal access to quality transit. Otherwise, Milwaukie can pay for MAX.” -Erik
First of all, it’s not just Milwaukie, it’s also SE Portland and hopefully Oregon City as well. You seem to be suggesting that Milwaukie should be last in line for “quality” transit, only after everyone else has it.
Second, Milwaukie IS paying for MAX, buses, even Tualatin’s commuter rail just like everyone else in Metro’s district and within TriMet’s boundaries.
“Like I said, if Tualatin is a problem, you’re all welcome to tell TriMet and Metro to remove Tualatin from the district boundary. Just be prepared to say “goodbye” to the tax revenue.” -Erik
Tualatin is not a problem. But you obviously think that Tualatin is being short-changed. It’s not up to us to remove Tualatin from TriMet’s service district, that has to be done by Tualatin’s leaders and citizens. You’re more than welcome to follow Wilsonville’s lead. In fact, you could even team up with Wilsonville to form an expanded SMART. The problem is, I don’t see a huge cry from Tualatin’s leaders to be removed from TriMet. You need to be talking to your mayor and city council about this, they’re the ones who can actually get your message to TriMet.
Some of us have a strange notion of “degraded” if we consider the quiet, smooth, reliable service of a MAX train as a step down from a bus that was usually crowded, slow & late, frequently starting, stopping and weaving in and out of traffic. To each his own, but I think most of North Portland loves the Yellow Line.
re Tualatin…it once had a transportation management association that started the current shuttle service (now run by the chamber). Business support failed to keep the TMA going. Number of jobs in an area is important, but so is density of jobs, just as with residental areas. Without density, getting transit to pencil is tough. I don’t think any outlying suburb has service that compares with the TriMet 96 in terms of travel time and number of trips.
Adding transit service is a tough road to travel…I have had a hand in getting three new bus lines to Swan Island since ’95; two are still running and doing pretty well; none were easy.
Let’s see, Ross Williams, who continually espouses that Tualatin is low density and not a town center (although Metro says it is) and not an employment center (although there are thousands of jobs in Tualatin).
Ross is not pro-transit. Ross is pro-MAX.
No Eric. I am neither. I am pro-community building. Transportation, whether MAX, streetcar or bus, bikes or pedestrians or automobiles are just a part of that.
Let’s see, Ross Williams, who continually espouses that Tualatin is low density and not a town center
I try not to use the term density, since it usually divides total residents by land mass, which is a lousy way to judge development patterns.
You are putting words in my mouth and I don’t appreciate it. I don’t intend to respond to your comments any more. I don’t think it is productive.
Bob R. said:
“I aksed for specific proof and all I get in return is “vibes”. Nice.”
>>>> I am pro-transit, but anti-rail when it comes to Portland (but definitely not in many other places!)
I also agree with a lot of what Erik says; if Trimet has diverted bus money to rail, I am going to be pissed. However, in fairness, a lot of improvements have been made to the bus operation (where MAX is not involved) since I came to Portland over 6 years ago. On the other hand, new rail operations have generally meant degraded bus service for many (witness the new transit mall under construction).
And Interstate Avenue would have probably developed eventually without MAX (when the zoning is changed) just like Alberta and Mississippi did.