|
|
click image for full size view
|
The streetcar system, promoted as a development tool, is supposed to be a local circulator with frequent stops and yet it will run without a stop for two-thirds of mile, across the Broadway Bridge between the Pearl District and the Eliot Neighborhood.
On the other hand, light rail is supposed to function as a high capacity regional system, (Metropolitan Area Express) but is being forced to function as a streetcar, creeping along downtown city streets with stops every few blocks.
It appears that each mode is being planned without much consideration of the other, with little thought given to developing a coordinated synergistic system.
Some serious thought should be given to the big picture.
Following is an example of how the three modes, coordinated as a single system in the central city, could provide better service than if developed individually.
- The Transit Mall could accommodate buses and streetcars. It is a more appropriate venue for frequent streetcar service than it is for long regional MAX trains.
- Streetcars routed via Station Way and over the Steel Bridge could provide additional service to the Pearl District and new service to the North Riverfront area.
- Streetcars could serve the Rose Quarter and connect the Lloyd District to both the Transit Mall and the Pearl District.
- The Yellow MAX Line could then extend south to Milwaukie on a direct eastside alignment, providing efficient transfers to eastside bus routes while avoiding two river crossings, awkward junctions at the Steel Bridge and a slow slog through downtown.
- The eastside streetcar could be routed over the Hawthorne Bridge and serve the Keller Auditorium area while providing a critical link between the greater eastside and South Waterfront.
- The Ross Island Bridge could be upgraded to provide bike, pedestrian and bus access to South Waterfront.
- The huge capital cost of a new light rail bridge and the expense of laying tracks over the recently refurbished Broadway Bridge could be avoided.
- The money saved would be better used to extend the Yellow MAX Line to Hayden Island and to extend streetcar service to Lake Oswego.
The attached map shows these modified river crossings. It also illustrates a north-south streetcar alignment through the eastside that incorporates the following advantages.
- Seventh Avenue, less intensely developed, provides more opportunities for new development than MLK/Grand.
- The Seventh Avenue corridor now lacks transit service whereas MLK/Grand has excellent bus service (148 trips a day) with the MLK #6 corridor bus route that connects Hayden Island to the transit mall and PSU.
- Lloyd District would be better served with two-way streetcar operation on Seventh Avenue, which is a two-way street. It would be more intuitive and easier to understand than the proposed split operation, with streetcars going in one direction on a two-way street and the other direction on a one-way street, with two blocks between tracks.
- The Seventh Avenue streetcar bridge across Sullivan’s Gulch could also provide a desirable bike and pedestrian link. Perhaps the old Sauvie Island Bridge could be recycled for this purpose.
- The Seventh Avenue alignment eliminates time consuming streetcar turns at Grand and Broadway, and at Oregon and MLK.
- The streetcar on Seventh Avenue would have less negative traffic impact than on the very busy MLK/Grand couplet.
70 responses to “Streetcars, MAX Trains and Buses – Three Modes – One System”
No, Jim: The whole transit system should have been developed as BUS/BUS RAPID TRANSIT. Just remember, what is now eastside MAX was supposed a non-stop busway until planners went to Europe and got infatuated with light rail, and railfans like you pushed for a rail alternative.
I have said all along that Portland does not have the density and spatial characteristics for rail operations.
Now we are stuck with a lousy ‘snail rail’ system that serves the riding public rather poorly, and heavy transit users like me have to suffer from additional travel times and unecessary transfers.
And I point the finger at people like you for having started this whole ‘mess.’
what is now eastside MAX was supposed a non-stop busway until planners went to Europe and got infatuated with light rail, and railfans like you pushed for a rail alternative.
Sure, Nick, it’s all because of “infatuation” and “railfans” and has absolutely nothing to do with capacity, cost, ridership and development. Sure. Right. Gotcha.
And I point the finger at people like you for having started this whole ‘mess.’
And I point the finger at people like you for having started this whole ‘mess.’
That’s what we need around here is more finger-pointing. It can’t be about honest disagreement, facts, or policy, you see … not when there’s infatuation behind everything.
Nick, thanks for the recognition that I was one of those who “started this whole mess”. I just wish I had more influence over more recent decisions.
The following is an example of how streetcar and light rail could operate over this shared track network.
Four light rail routes, each operating on a policy headway of 10 minutes
1. Blue Line – Gresham – Hillsboro
2. Red Line – PIA – Willow Creek/SW 185th
3. Yellow Line – Hayden Island – Milwaukie
4. Green Line – Clackamas TC – Beaverton TC
Three streetcar lines, each operating on a policy headway of 10 minutes
1. “A” Line – NW 23rd – SW Lowell (existing)
2. “B” Line – NW 16th – SW Jackson (Pearl/Mall)
3. “C” Line – SW Jackson – SW Lowell (Mall/Eastside Loop)
This operating scenario would have 18 MAX trains and 6 streetcars crossing the Steel Bridge every hour in each direction. It also would provide streetcar headways of 5 minutes on the Transit Mall and through South Waterfront (SW Harrison-SW Lowell)
JIM HOWELL:
I like it!
Excellent article, makes perfect sense!
Now, how do you get the ‘honchos’ to listen?
Al
Nick-
We can’t undo whats been done!
We have to go forward!
Lets at least go forward intelligently!
Nick –
For as much as you complain that others are infatuated with rail, you are also clearly infatuated with BRT and suggest it as the no-fail alternative to rail all the time on this blog.
I’m not saying BRT is a bad idea, but I do think that a balanced transportation system incorporates a variety of modes (roads, rail, bus, brt, walking paths, bicycle paths, etc.) to match the best options/solutions to the variety of issues being dealt with. I don’t think BRT has found it’s best application in Portland yet but I do think that variations of it do exist successfully in Portland with the high frequency lines.
Jim Howell wrote
The following is an example of how streetcar and light rail could operate over this shared track network. (etc.)
Your proposal has much in its favor. My question is a technical one: to what extent are the MAX trains and streetcars interoperable?
We know the gauge, power systems, etc., are compatible, and that occasionally streetcars venture onto the MAX lines to get to the shops. But that’s just occasionally, and (I assume) at night when no passengers are aboard.
Are the signaling and safety systems compatible enough to run revenue (that is, passenger-carrying) streetcars interleaved with MAX trains? Also, is there a crash-strength issue in mixing the two kinds of trains?
Aside for those who may not be train freaks like me: the main reason WES will run with “big” diesel multiple-unit trains instead of diesel-powered light-rail vehicles (which might be cheaper) is that WES trains will be mixing it up with freight trains and LRVs don’t comply with FRA crash standards for that situation. LRVs are safe if they have the line to themselves.
(For examples of diesel LRVs in this country, see the San Diego-area Sprinter at http://www.trainweb.org/carl/TRAC2007/Sprinter.html
or the southern New Jersey River LINE at http://www.riverline.com/. The NJ line operates passenger service till mid-evening, when the freights take over. I think the California one is passenger-only.)
So Jim, what do the standards say (if anything) about LRVs mixing it up with much smaller and lighter streetcars?
Mike
Mike –
I can’t answer all of the interoperability questions you asked of Jim, but there’s one incompatibility that does get discussed occasionally.
The streetcar vehicles are 6″ narrower (3″ on each side) than MAX LRVs. This may prevent them, in their current configuration, from using the same platforms as MAX. However, technical solutions may be able to be developed. The San Francisco MUNI light rail cars, for example, use “gap fillers” which extend out between the doors and the platforms in the MUNI subway tunnel.
For just moving from point A to point B, a streetcar can go right past a MAX platform without trouble, but a MAX LRV cannot go past a streetcar platform because they stick 3″ further into the street (and the streetcar track bed installed to-date cannot support a MAX LRV, and the streetcar turns are too tight for MAX.)
Thus, we can talk about operating streetcars on existing MAX tracks, but we probably can’t talk about operating MAX on existing streetcar tracks.
The width issue isn’t as big of a hurdle for Jim’s proposal, if I understand it correctly, because few (if any) platforms would be directly shared by MAX and Streetcar.
Jim-
I don’t understand why you would want to do that weird Steel Bridge loop at the north end. Why not just run streetcars across the Broadway Bridge?
Both the Steel and Hawthorne Bridges as Streetcar routes force a bit of out of direction travel. And while I would love a 7th Avenue alignment with a beautiful Streetcar/bike/ped bridge over Sullivans Gulch, that alignment was soundly rejected by Central Eastside folks. There remains there a desire to protect the Industrial Sanctuary up to 12th Avenue…for better or worse.
What really protects CES from more intense development is the UPRR mainline and I-5. When the former is buried and the latter removed, then I would favor a lightrail connection from RQ to the Milwaukie MAX line thru CES…perhaps a conversion of the MLK/Grand streetcar tracks into MAX line with an exclusive ROW.
How do costs of 7th Avenue bridge compare with those of retrofiting Broadway and the new Milwaukie MAX bridge? Are you just moving money around? Will the Milwaukie Bridge be designed to be compatible with a future N/S subway?
Jim,
I like the vision you have laid out. I’ve been reading this board for a long time, and while I’m definitely a big fan of rail, I’ve had a lot of doubts about the Eastside Streetcar loop. I’ve read all the arguments about “access” vs. “mobility”, but I don’t think this loop as now proposed provides either. I like your map better, although I think I would change the northern end. I think the eastside loop would serve the most riders and be a true catalyst for development as well as future expansion if it the northern end were instead routed over the Burnside Bridge, west to NW 23rd, then north up 23rd to connect to the existing terminus, thus forming a giant figure-8 of sorts. This loop would then easily accommodate future extensions up the Burnside/Sandy corridor (as I believe Sam Adams has proposed as part of the Burnside couplet plan), as well as extensions in the Hawthorne and Macadam/L.O. corridors. Plus it would serve an existing high-ridership corridor where buses are already crowded. While I like the idea of using the Steel Bridge to save money, I really don’t think streetcar service up in that area on the east side is necessary, as that area is already pretty well served by MAX lines, and most of the development along Broadway/Weidler in that stretch is auto-oriented with fast food joints and car dealerships (further up Broadway, however, would be a good place for streetcar service, and thus would perhaps justify your alignment as a precursor to a future extension along Broadway…)
I just don’t see why people would ride the eastside alignment as now proposed. Assuming that it did act as a catalyst for development (which I don’t think it would as it doesn’t seem to connect logically to a pre-existing destination), where would new residents of this neighborhood want to go on this streetcar? It would be faster to walk to most downtown destinations than to ride this streetcar. It wouldn’t provide direct access to NW 21st/23rd without requiring a transfer, or Lloyd Center, or anywhere except OMSI, which is not a daily destination for most, and the Pearl. Does direct access between the central east side and the Pearl (and ONLY the Pearl) really justify the construction of a streetcar? Perhaps this alignment is envisioned as a first step toward a larger system? If so I’d be interested to see the long-range plans as I can’t figure out how it is intended to work…
In any case, I definitely agree with the argument that streetcar and MAX planning need to be better coordinated. MAX needs to run faster through downtown to meet regional mobility needs, and thus Streetcar and bus service should be planned to provide comprehensive access throughout the central city in a logical way that compliments the mobility that MAX provides. And maybe the loop that I proposed isn’t the most ideal either — I can definitely see where there would be operational complexities if lots of future extensions were built. However, I do think it would serve immediate needs better, provide logical access routes for new central eastside residents to get where they need to go, and would not rely on a new bridge for the southern portion of the loop.
Jim-
I don’t understand why you would want to do that weird Steel Bridge loop at the north end. Why not just run streetcars across the Broadway Bridge?
“and the streetcar track bed installed to-date cannot support a MAX LRV”
Really? My understanding is that the original MAX trackwork was 9″ deep concrete, but they’ve since realized that they can do it in 7″, just like the streetcar… Now, it is possible that that 7″ may have heavier rail and more rebar and stronger cement than the 7″ of the streetcar, but it is still the same footprint. (I may have those numbers wrong, they may not be 9″ and 7″, they may be 13″ and 11″, but the point is still the same.)
But part of the reason that they realized this, was because per linear foot of train, the streetcar is about the same weight as the MAX, so a 4 car streetcar train is the same length and weight as a 2 car MAX train, (although the streetcar has 8 trucks to MAX’s 6.)
Matthew –
Sorry if I got that wrong about incompatible trackbed depths … that’s what I remember reading a few years ago. (That doesn’t address the turning radius issue, though.) Can anyone provide a conclusive answer?
– Bob
Didn’t Chris make it clear that the streetcar is not possible on any other street other than down the middle of Highway 99E ala MLK and Grand?
I still don’t believe in the 99E route, it needs to STAY OFF it, go down 7th whatever the zoning rules are. If zones can change for the Pearl, it can change elsewhere.
“Sorry if I got that wrong about incompatible trackbed depths … that’s what I remember reading a few years ago.”
I’ve heard it many times as well, in fact wikipedia says it right now, but my source is Rick Gustafson, and he’d know…
“(That doesn’t address the turning radius issue, though.)”
Correct. And I don’t see a lot of reason to run a full size MAX train into the Pearl anyways, better headways would be far more valuable, (although Lake Oswego may be different…)
“go down 7th whatever the zoning rules are. If zones can change for the Pearl, it can change elsewhere.”
I can tell you from being on my neighborhood association that people tend to object when you change the zoning on the property near them, something about not wanting change… (I can’t exactly blame them, would you want a 35 foot appartment building next to your single family house? Me neither. But I didn’t move next to a Taco Bell drive through in the first place.) But the Pearl was abandoned property, it used to be a rail yard. There wasn’t anyone near it that was going to object…
Jim, your proposal makes terrific sense. I’m definitely on board with keeping the Yellow line entirely on the east side and running the streetcar on 7th. I also think it’s appropriate to run streetcars on the mall instead of MAX. The streetcars are much more in-scale with downtown, and we should be finding ways to increase the capacity of MAX in the long-term (i.e., additional trains and a tunnel through downtown). MAX should be a regional people-mover, not a local circulator.
Nick, I know where you’re coming from and I will be the first to agree that we need to be evaluating BRT in some corridors, but I feel it is extremely short sighted to say that we have wasted our money investing in MAX by looking at the layout and population density of Portland as it is today. More people are coming (and greater numbers of people desire an urban lifestyle), and having the infrastructure in place today is a much smarter decision than simply reacting later when it becomes a critical need. However I do believe it will soon become vital to move MAX underground to reduce the cross-town travel times; I’m no fan of MAX stopping every two blocks like a bus or streetcar. Like fareless square, it has proven to be a nice prop to get people to use transit downtown in the 80’s and 90’s, but now and especially in the future we should be looking at dramatically improving the efficiency of the complete transit system.
Jim’s ideas go a long way towards setting the stage for a vastly improved transit network in the central city for the long term (30+ years out), but it is difficult for many to separate themselves from the reality of today to look that far down the road (thus wanting to preserve the CES industrial sanctuary, IMO). Bob has excellent ideas for moving MAX underground from the Rose Quarter to PGE Park, and it is this type of vision that – if realized – would prove most valuable to the region in the long term.
Bob has excellent ideas for moving MAX underground from the Rose Quarter to PGE Park, and it is this type of vision that – if realized – would prove most valuable to the region in the long term.
Thanks for the credit, but my ideas are based a lot on comments made here by djk.
You mean the old egalitarian street car system that anyone could ride for a small fee to Mt. Tabor to cool off on not summer day.
What we hope to happen with streetcar lines on Broadway/Weidler and MLK/Grand is traffic calming. Sidewalk curb extensions and the railbed itself will signal motorists to slow the hell down. They should make it safer to walk and bicycle.
The 2040 Regional Plan does not encourage development only downtown, just the opposite. Development needs to occur on the eastside.
Furthermore, should Beaverton devote its little center to car dealers and parking lots? Shouldn’t Hillsboro build up? Vancouver, Gateway, Gresham, Oak Grove, Oregon City and many other places throughout the metropolitan area all need the building materials that are being deposited downtown in the form of gradiose skyscrapers.
If the suburbs remain developmentally dysfunctional, car-dependent, long-distance travel dependent, no light rail or bus system can be arranged to address the problems associated with traffic.
On this basis, I must disagree with Jim’s streetcar plan and with the subway idea. Only when the suburbs build stronger economies will their need for long-distance commuting and overall travel decrease to the point where it can be met with appropriate transit service.
I really doubt that the streetcar will manage to traffic calm MLK/Grand & Broadway/Weidler, these are high speed one ways with 3-4 lanes in each direction.
I wanted to see these couplets made into 2 ways, Weidler & MLK remaining as rather high speed thru-traffic streets like they are now (although 2 way) and the other parallel street Grand & Broadway a ‘main street’ type street traffic calmed and handling slow local traffic and the streetcar line. Grand & Broadway are the streets with pedestrian scaled shopping districts that are being choked by high speed thru traffic that ruins any ability to stroll the sidewalks.
And also what about just building an eastside crosstown streetcar line on MLK/Grand/7th from Irvington to OMSI with no connections to the westside, just running north-south allowing transfers from MAX and all the main inbound/outbound bus lines (Hawthorne, Belmont, Burnside, Broadway, Sandy, etc.). Obviously there would need to be another carbarn but might make up for the savings in much less track construction.
It might be instructive to attend some Eastside Loop CAC meetings. There has been a long conversation there and elsewhere about Streetcar alignment, and guess what…the agreed upon result is a compromise, though one informed by some decent data. The same can be said for the Mall and Milwaukie MAX alignments.
A more fruitful discussion here might be about routes, types of service, etc. that are still up in the air…Barbur, Powell/Foster, and an eastside MAX alignment for once the I-5 freeway is gone.
Wells said,
What we hope to happen with streetcar lines on Broadway/Weidler and MLK/Grand is traffic calming. Sidewalk curb extensions and the railbed itself will signal motorists to slow the hell down. They should make it safer to walk and bicycle.
Well, maybe, but slowing the traffic could be done much more economically by installing more traffic lights and timing them properly, so traffic moving at the right speed would get a “green wave” and traffic moving too fast would get stopped at reds.
(I’ll say it again) I’m new here and just getting used to the culture, but I’ve been quite surprised by the scarcity of stoplights on main arterials, especially in or near the central core. Just today I had to cross Grand (in my car) and chose the wrong cross street – Ash, I think it was. Traffic was moving steadily and rather fast. There’s a light at Burnside and I couldn’t see down to the next southerly one. I waited several minutes to get across safely. The traffic was too fast for a city street, IMO.
Couplets can serve the dual, seemingly paradoxical, purpose of speeding traffic up and slowing it down, through careful siting and timing of lights.
There’s a famous couplet in West Philadelphia (Chestnut/Walnut), running through residential and business areas. The speed limit is 25 and the lights are timed at 28. There’s a light at almost every block. If you drive at that speed, you can go for at least several miles without stopping for a red. Yet pedestrians and cross traffic have few problems because the light cycles are pretty frequent. Those one-way arterials are 3 (maybe 4) lanes, and the buses move along pretty well even if they have to stop. I don’t recall whether they are nearside or farside stops. So it can be done.
I like streetcars, and traffic calming may be a nice side effect of them, but it’s a weak primary justification because calming can be done by other means for a much smaller investment.
Mike
There seems to be widespread agreement that we need more transportation capacity across the Wilamette River.
If a bridge is not built as a part of Milwaukie MAX, then what new project will address this capacity issue?
A new light rail and bus only bridge may cost upwards of $250 million, but how much would a new transit and private vehicle bridge cost to construct?
The Milwaukie MAX bridge may have its issues, but I haven’t heard of a better or more cost effective way to add capacity across the river.
You are absolutely right Mike. Grand and MLK would benefit greatly from increased signaliztion and signal synchroniztion. Cars could be moved through more efficiently and at a more consistent speed. This would reduce congestion and increase safety at the same time.
Sam Adams Safe Sound and Green Streets program would spend quite a bit of money on projects such as this.
Chris may know this, but I would guess that more signals on MLK/Grant are part of the Streetcar project budget.
Broadway Weidler suffers from the same malady east of 16th where the is just a signal at 21st, then 24th. If signals are set at 25, you can expect speeds up to 35 as drivers try to catch up.
The default signal setting on urban mainstreets should be no higher than 20 mph or about 30 kmph. Downtown it should be 12 mph or about 20 kmph. Motorized traffic still rules the streets of Portland for all the talk and policy of the last 30 years.
…and where is Jim Howell in this discussion? Does he think he can just post, and not respond to comments? That’s not really the Portland Transport style.
C’mon, Jim, respond to the comments and answer the questions.
thanks,
~Garlynn
Garlynn-
Me thinks the man may be pretty smart and know better!
:-*
He might have other things going on in his life that doesn’t allow him to post at the moment?
=)
Garlynn should read the original post before asking a question (twice) that is answered in bullet point number 7. Not everyone spends their day plugged into the Internet.
The default signal setting on urban mainstreets should be no higher than 20 mph…Downtown it should be 12 mph
Downtown signals are times for less than 15 mph, and control speeds very well. On the eastside (Broadway/Weidler/MLK/Grand), they are set for 25-30 mph. This is a policy decision that PDOT could change tomorrow if they wanted to, even without adding more signals.
Another good reason for installing rail on the Broadway Bridge is the potential to reroute MAX in the event of problems on the Steel Bridge.
All that’s needed is segments of double-track on Larrabee and SW Broadway, and spur junctions between Broadway and Interstate Ave in the Rose Quarter, and between the Transit Mall and the Broadway Bridge. There would not need to be a junction on Interstate for a direct connection to the Yellow Line to North Portland. Not an inexpensive rail junction project, but worth the investment to keep MAX running.
I like the idea of someday running streetcar line across the Hawthorne Bridge, very much as Jim proposes, but the current plan for a new LRT bridge that the streetcar could also use makes more sense for access to South Waterfront.
“Another good reason for installing rail on the Broadway Bridge is the potential to reroute MAX in the event of problems on the Steel Bridge.”
Besides the fact that it would be impossible (since MAX won’t fit past the streetcar stations) to get a MAX train down that route in the first place, it would also be very slow to ride the detour… In the event of a problem with the street bridge that prevented a train from getting over it, it would be far faster to unload and turn around the trains at the Rose Quarter/China Town stops, and have people walk over the bridge, (assuming that it was still passable on foot.) If the bridge was completely impassable at all, then some sort of shuttle bus service would be needed to go across a different bridge, again faster than running a train down the streetcar tracks…
TriMet knows all of this, (not just for the bridge, but for the tunnel and any number of other places that a problem might happen,) and that is why they have 2 maintenance facilitates, one on each side of town…
Downtown signals are times for less than 15 mph, and control speeds very well. On the eastside (Broadway/Weidler/MLK/Grand), they are set for 25-30 mph. This is a policy decision that PDOT could change tomorrow if they wanted to, even without adding more signals.
That’s true, but my point is that if the signals are too far apart, drivers can (and do) speed through the un-signaled sections. For signal timing to work really well (as in my Philly case), the signals need to be sufficiently close together that there’s no incentive to speed — a speeding driver will be more likely to get caught by a red than one who’s driving right at the timed speed. Drivers “get with the program” pretty quickly.
That Philly couplet had lights at almost every corner. Philly’s blocks are much longer than Portland’s 200-footers (well, Eastside blocks are longer, but not by much), so a light at every corner is probably overkill in Portland. But except for downtown, IMO the lights are too far apart. Even the Glisan/Everett couplet from NW through the Pearl and Old Town is a speedway because the lights are too far apart.
Today I drove down SE 11th from Ash to Division, and back up SE 12th. The lights along there are only every 9-10 blocks, which is about 1/2 mile. The longest run is from Hawthorne to Division — 10 blocks. That is much too far apart. Much of the Grand/MLK couplet also has too few lights. (Try crossing Grand at Ash — as I did today — to see what I mean!)
About a year ago, I first started driving out Interstate Ave. to get to New Seasons. I was really impressed with the light timing. Of course, that whole road was re-done when Interstate MAX was built a few years ago. I could go from Portland Blvd/Rosa Parks Way all the way down to Greeley or thereabouts without hitting a red, if I drove at the timed speed.
The timing seems to have deteriorated — the lights don’t seem to change in sync anymore. It needs to be tweaked. Probably it’s computerized, so the traffic folks need to tinker with the computer.
The old Philly scheme pre-dated computerization — every intersection had to be set individually from its pole-mounted control box. I watched a guy do it once, many years ago. It was labor-intensive but it worked great.
Mike
Garlynn-
As I described in a previous comment, The eastside streetcar would operate on the mall (“C” Line), not directly to the Pearl, making the Steel Bridge the logical river crossing. The #77 – Broadway/Halsey Bus, with its 112 trips a day, should be moved back to crossing the river on the Broadway Bridge. This would provide the direct Pearl to Lloyd District link without the capital cost of laying tracks on the Broadway Bridge.
Garlynn-
As I described in a previous comment, The eastside streetcar would operate on the mall (“C” Line), not directly to the Pearl, making the Steel Bridge the logical river crossing. The #77 – Broadway/Halsey Bus, with its 112 trips a day, should be moved back to crossing the river on the Broadway Bridge. This would provide the direct Pearl to Lloyd District link without the capital cost of laying tracks on the Broadway Bridge.
I have to contest Matthew’s claim that MAX can’t cross the Willamette on the Broadway Bridge. There won’t be a single streetcar stop along the stretch of rail between Interstate & Larrabee and the Transit Mall.
Also, being able to detour MAX across the Broadway Bridge will be less expensive than organizing a small fleet of shuttle buses, less inconvenient and time-consuming for passengers to make the transfer, and less complex than arranging the turnarounds of MAX trains.
Laying rail across the Broadway Bridge is ideal and not all that expensive. Now you want expensive, give two thoughts about boring a subway tunnel and building underground stations.
Another part of Jim’s proposal I like is the eastside MAX connector. But that could wait a while til decisions are made about the UPRR main line being relocated to a tunnel under Grand Ave and an I-5 rebuild. For now, current streetcar plans look pretty good.
I have to contest Matthew’s claim that MAX can’t cross the Willamette on the Broadway Bridge. There won’t be a single streetcar stop along the stretch of rail between Interstate & Larrabee and the Transit Mall.
Also, being able to detour MAX across the Broadway Bridge will be less expensive than organizing a small fleet of shuttle buses, less inconvenient and time-consuming for passengers to make the transfer, and less complex than arranging the turnarounds of MAX trains.
Laying rail across the Broadway Bridge is ideal and not all that expensive. Now you want expensive, give two thoughts about boring a subway tunnel and building underground stations.
Another part of Jim’s proposal I like is the eastside MAX connector. But that could wait a while til decisions are made about the UPRR main line being relocated to a tunnel under Grand Ave and an I-5 rebuild. For now, current streetcar plans look pretty good.
Jim-
Thanks for clarifying that point. Now I see why you propose not putting streetcar tracks across the Broadway, initially. From the map, it doesn’t make intuitive sense — butnow I see the operational sense.
Still, I think that long-term, it does make sense to lay streetcar track across the Broadway. But, long-term, streetcars may once-again grace Woodstock Blvd., too, so anything is possible on a long enough time frame.
On one of these threads, I’d really like to have a good discussion about the possibility of light rail out powell, and streetcar out Hawthorne/Foster…
“On one of these threads, I’d really like to have a good discussion about the possibility of light rail out powell, and streetcar out Hawthorne/Foster…”
The Hawthorne streetcar has been discussed:
http://portlandtransport.com/cgi-bin/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=2&search=streetcar+Hawthorne
In particular:
http://portlandtransport.com/archives/2007/01/hawthorne_stree.html
Its helpful to remember that Streetcar has its origins in the neighborhood/community/business community and is not a TriMet project. (Same is true of WES). Indeed one might even say the agency was cool to the idea, though the City of Portland, Streetcar’s owner, has an operations agreement with TriMet.
MAX exists in Portland because it can operate as both a high speed, high capacity train AND as a slow, street friendly, streetcar. Had the initial proposal included a subway tunnel in downtown, costs would have been prohibitive.
We all know how to make the trip through downtown faster…close a few stations, but good luck.
Jim can maybe get us some data on trip O & Ds on MAX; how many Yellow Line riders are destined for downtown; how many Red and Blue with destinations downtown vs. beyond. If you travel only part way thru downtown to a stop near your destination the pace is less of an annoyance.
To see how all three rail systems can work together check out the FVV in Frankfurt am Main, Germany…there must be a website.
Trying to distinguish between the City of Portland and Trimet is as ridiculous as trying to distinguish between the City of Portland and the County of Multnomah!
All three of these tax funded bureaucracies function in cahoots with each other.
They have their petty bureaucratic differences, as all bureaucrats do, but don’t you sit wherever it is your sitting and try to tell me and others that somehow this street car is “Portland” thing cause your full of crap.
There would be no street car without Trimet and without Trimet the street car CANNOT function.
To Trimet’s great credit, they were against it.
But Portland holds all the cards in the transit deck.
“All three of these tax funded bureaucracies function in cahoots with each other.”
Bureaucracy gives birth to itself and then expects maternity benefits.
“Dale Dauten”
To see how all three rail systems can work together check out the FVV in Frankfurt am Main, Germany…there must be a website.
Yes, and it is even (partly) available in english:
RMV
The RMV link again:
http://www.rmv.de/coremedia/generator/RMV/Sprachen/SPRACH__ART__en.html
About 10 days ago, Jim Howell wrote
It appears that each mode is being planned without much consideration of the other, with little thought given to developing a coordinated synergistic system.
Some serious thought should be given to the big picture.
He then went ahead and gave his “big picture view” to which many responded with interesting critiques.
I think Jim’s main concern was with process, that the different modes are being planned by different “circles of power” that aren’t coordinating properly.
As a newcomer, I share Jim’s concern. I perceive that the streetcar fans are planning streetcars, the MAX fans are planning new MAX lines, and nobody seems to be taking a big-picture look at buses.
I was under the impression that Metro is responsible for transportation planning in this region. If so, shouldn’t Metro, Portland transportation dept, county officials, PDC, TriMet, and ODOT (roads) all be sitting in one room and drawing up a coordinated plan they could all agree to?
The discussion on this blog and the various newspapers seem to confirm that each of the stakeholders is pressing ahead on its own. Is that the case?
Mike
As a newcomer, I share Jim’s concern. I perceive that the streetcar fans are planning streetcars, the MAX fans are planning new MAX lines, and nobody seems to be taking a big-picture look at buses.
I agree and disagree in parts. I think the rail process is relatively well coordinated. Metro and TriMet own the High Capacity plan and the City is filling in Streetcar routes that branch off/complement the HCT system. Buses are less clear and could probably use more integration in the planning, but as the bus fans have made clear, it’s easier to change the bus plans :-)
Chris said,
I agree and disagree in parts. I think the rail process is relatively well coordinated. Metro and TriMet own the High Capacity plan and the City is filling in Streetcar routes that branch off/complement the HCT system.
But that tends to confirm my point — in my view there ought to be a single, consolidated plan that all the agencies have agreed to. You’re confirming that streetcars are not really a part of the plan, they’re an appendage.
Is the HCT plan a public document? Got a link to it?
Buses are less clear and could probably use more integration in the planning, but as the bus fans have made clear, it’s easier to change the bus plans :-)
Is there even an overall bus plan that coordinates with the HCT?
Naive optimist that I am, I’d expect to see a plan that said
— here is where we want to put high-capacity light rail or commuter rail
— there is where we want to put lower-capacity circulator (streetcar routes)
— these are the bus routes that will be affected by each new rail segment as it comes online
— those are the trunk bus routes we’d like to beef up (higher frequency, articulated buses, whatever) because they aren’t being replaced by rail
— those are the neighborhood bus routes whose ridership doesn’t warrant 40-ft buses so we’ll replace them with smaller buses or vans
and so on. With the signatures of city, counties, Metro, TriMet, and ODOT.
I wonder if opposition to the various modes would be diminished if everyone could see how their favorite mode coordinates with the others, and most important, if everyone could see that someone was looking out for the Big Picture.
For example, I worry at the perception that the bus system in some parts of the region is being shortchanged by excessive funding going to the rail system. If the perception is incorrect — that the bus system is getting its fair share — it would be nice to see a clear statement to that effect, backed by information on how the bus system is being funded and upgraded.
Meanwhile, I have an uneasy feeling that the proponents of the various modes (e.g. streetcar vs. MAX) are spinning along in competition with each other. And the whole thing isn’t being properly coordinated with the regional road system, especially the Willamette bridges.
Mike
The HCT plan process is just starting, I have actually not seen a briefing on it, although I did see agenda items for the briefing on TPAC and JPACT agendas.
I think the level of coordination is reasonable (for the rail stuff). Saying that they need to be in one plan is a little bit like saying ODOT can’t plan a freeway without also planning Portland street grid. There are valid reasons to have different levels of government do different things.
Ultimately the Regional Transportation Plan ties all these together.
Chris said,
I think the level of coordination is reasonable (for the rail stuff).
I’ll agree with that statement when I see a single map that shows the plans for MAX lines and streetcar lines and Willamette bridges (and bus improvements, if possible), to which city, Metro, and TriMet have all agreed.
Maybe it’s just the way the media report it, but one rarely reads about MAX plans and streetcar plans in the same story. It’s as though they were in different cities. (Maybe I missed a more holistic discussion in the press somewhere — if so, I’ll be glad to read it and stand corrected.)
Saying that they need to be in one plan is a little bit like saying ODOT can’t plan a freeway without also planning Portland street grid. There are valid reasons to have different levels of government do different things.
Well, I’m not suggesting that all of ODOT’s projects be included in Portland’s plan, but rather that ODOT be at the table with the others when Portland’s plan is discussed. The various bridges are intimately related to Portland’s planning, and the state is surely involved in the Columbia Crossing.
My chief concern is that I see TriMet chugging ahead with MAX plans, and the city chugging ahead with streetcar plans, and it’s unclear how much they are talking to each other. And nobody talks much about the buses (publicly, anyway), which ought to be an integral part of the whole, not a separate subject.
Mike
Mike, given that TriMet pays a significant share of the operating expenses for Streetcar (2/3rds for the current alignment, likely somewhat less on the east side) AND that any MAX line in the City of Portland will have some portion of its capital cost paid for with Urban Renewal funds from the City AND that no Federal funds can flow to either project without Metro’s approval, there is zero opportunity for a disconnect between the three governments on rail planning.
For example, the “Loop” project and Lake Oswego project are governed by a body that consists of representatives from Portland, Multnomah County, Clackamas County, TriMet, Metro and Portland Streetcar Inc. Pretty much any of those bodies has a veto.
The place to look for a comprehensive transportation picture is the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) which resides at Metro. That process is going on now, and is open to the public. Chris can provide all the links to the current RTP, etc.
Streetcar has its origins in the Central City Plan developed in the late ’80’s with a ton of public process, etc.
Lenny said,
The place to look for a comprehensive transportation picture is the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) which resides at Metro. That process is going on now, and is open to the public. Chris can provide all the links to the current RTP, etc.
I just visited the Metro site and downloaded the “Final 2035 RTP” and will try to peruse it in detail.
Streetcar has its origins in the Central City Plan developed in the late ’80’s with a ton of public process, etc.
I’m well aware that each of these projects separately has had tons of public process; I’m hoping that the RTP will cover all of them, in one holistic plan. Jim Howell has had much, much more experience around here than I, and he started this thread. If he’s concerned about lack of coordinated planning, that’s enough to make me concerned.:-)
Mike
Note that only the Federal version of the 2035 RTP is complete. The more important state version (the one that really drives land use decisions) is still very much in process.
The Federal version had an earlier deadline required to keep $$$ flowing to the region.
“Pretty much any of those bodies has a veto.”
Well, if you ask me, from where I sit, it seems that CITY OF PORTLAND holds all the aces and can pretty much force any issue.
I give you:
THE STREETCAR!
BOB R;
Here’s a good one for ya!
In terms of ‘revenue miles of service’,
is it possible to break down miles of service in Portland/Multnomah county,
vs.
outside of Portland/Multnomah county?
I’ll bet ya its 10:1, or even more like 20:1
TRIMET should be renamed:
Portland Area Transit, a more accurate description of what it really is.
(and then they can ‘pat’ themselves on their governmental collective backs)
Chris said
Note that only the Federal version of the 2035 RTP is complete. The more important state version (the one that really drives land use decisions) is still very much in process.
Is the state one on the web somewhere? Got a link?
Mike
It’s all under the Metro RTP pages:
http://www.metro-region.org/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=25038
Al asked (sorry for collapsing it into paragraphs)
In terms of ‘revenue miles of service’, is it possible to break down miles of service in Portland/Multnomah county, vs. outside of Portland/Multnomah county?
“Revenue miles” may be a standard measure, bit it’s unclear to me. For example, if a bus line’s route extends over 10 miles end-to-end (a round-trip is thus 20 miles), and buses make 15 round trips a day on that line, would that be 20 revenue miles, or 300?
In other words, does “revenue miles” take into account frequency of service as well as length of route?
I’ll bet ya its 10:1, or even more like 20:1
I checked TriMet’s website and Metro’s website, looking for statistical tables like this. They may be in the RTP appendices, but I could not find the appendices on the web, only the report body, which has 288 pages of words and few numbers.
I did find one interesting report. Go to
http://www.metro-region.org/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=25036
and click “Profile of the regional transit system”. That’s a 30-page PDF. The map on p. 17 shows MAX, streetcar, frequent-service bus, and standard bus.
It’s easy to see that the frequent service lines (I think this means 15-minute headway or less) are concentrated on the Portland Eastside, with very little outside the city. The standard service buses cover a much larger area, but the map doesn’t show frequency, so a given line could be (theoretically) twice an hour or twice a day.
Are there tables available that show actual route data? All I could find is one on p. 15, giving average weekday boardings for the top 25 lines, but no revenue miles. I’m not intimately familiar with the bus system, but I think there’s only one line (57 TV Hwy/Forest Grove) whose route isn’t mostly in Portland.
Mike
In clicking through the 288 PDF pages of the Regional Transportation Plan, obviously all I could do in a brief time was skim it very quickly.
That said, I think the title may be a misnomer. It is not a transportation plan. It details a process for planning. We might call it a “meta-plan”.
Unless I missed something on my skim, it does not specify where routes should go; it only sets out a process for specifying where routes should go.
And there is very little supporting data. If the data are there and I missed them, someone please correct me and tell me which pages to look at. If the data are in the appendices, please tell me where to find those appendices.
I think I was correct yesterday in saying I do not perceive a consolidated plan to which all the agencies have signed up. I think the RTP will be a very useful document, but it is not a plan — it’s a plan for how to write a plan.
Jim Howell’s original post that started this thread is the nearest thing I’ve seen to an actual plan that includes more than one mode at a time.
Mike
About 50% of TriMet’s budget comes from the payroll tax. (The rest is roughly 25% farebox, 25% other sources.) This means that for better or worse, the employers ought to have a strong say in the transit service. Do they? Do they assert themselves in a way that’s proportional to their tax contribution? For example, Nike and Intel, as the largest (I think) industrial employers in the region, ought to be influencing the levels of Washington County service for the benefit of them and their employees. Are they?
And who is speaking for Clackamas County?
Is there a chart somewhere that shows the population of the TriMet service area, by county?
Mike
I think Mike brings up a good point about the coordination of planning, and unfortunately Chris took it off base by interjecting ODOT.
TriMet is the sole regional provider of public transportation in the region south of the Columbia River.
TriMet owns/operates MAX and the bus system, as well as plays a major role in the City of Portland Streetcar.
Yet the only “coordination” comes when TriMet wants to install a feeder bus line to MAX.
Most cities create a true transit plan that identifies major corridors, and then implements the corridors based upon the resources available. In other words, the 12-Barbur bus line would get as much planning attention as a MAX line, but due to “resource availability” it might still be a bus for many years.
In Seattle they are not only planning for light rail but also BRT, what we would call “frequent service” corridors, commuter rail, and Streetcar (and they used to plan for Monorail as a separate system until voted out by the public). All as a unified, single system.
Not in Portland, we have MAX, and then we have the Streetcar. And then someone forgets that TriMet operates a bus system too, and throws some scraps at it.
Yes, we need to work with the other governmental players to – the cities, counties, and even ODOT. But TriMet is supposed to be the unified transit agency. I’m personally under the belief that TriMet doesn’t even want to act in this role, so why do we have TriMet – we could better provide transit by breaking down the system by county (like Seattle or Los Angeles, or San Francisco, or Chicago) along with a City of Portland system. This would exert better local control over transit demands and losing the downtown Portland emphasis on regional travel (at least outside of the City of Portland).
Then there could be a regional agency (a la Sound Transit) that provides the regional links together (which also is mandated to equally spend its money so that no one area gets a bigger benefit than the others).
Erik said
But TriMet is supposed to be the unified transit agency. I’m personally under the belief that TriMet doesn’t even want to act in this role.
Hmmm, let’s look at the history. See
http://trimet.org/about/organization/orggov.htm
Here are a couple of paragraphs from that doc (emphasis added):
General Powers
TriMet is a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon. It is a public body. It has broad powers to provide mass transportation on behalf of the district. It can issue general obligation bonds (vote) and revenue bonds. TriMet also has an employer payroll tax.
The Board of Directors
TriMet is governed by a seven-member Board of directors. They are appointed by the Governor and represent and must live in certain geographical districts. The term of office is four years, but they serve at the pleasure of the Governor. The Board sets agency policy, enacts legislation (taxing and ordinances relating to police ordinances) and reviews certain contracts.
Now here’s a list of the board members:
District/Name
SW Portland/Richard Van Beveren
N, NW & portions of SW Portland/Tiffany Sweitzer
N & NW Portland/George Passadore, Pres.
SE Portland/Sue Van Brocklin
NE Portland/George Richardson
E Multnomah County/Lynn Lehrbach
Clackamas County/Robert Williams
Portland has 5/7 members, E Multnomah (=Gresham, I guess) has 1/7, Clackamas has 1/7, and Washington County has…none.
Apparently this is a requirement of the TriMet statutory structure. Now according to
http://trimet.org/about/history/trimet_story.htm
TriMet began operation in 1969, after taking over the old Rose City Transit operation.
Maybe 40 years ago when TriMet was created the Portland suburbs were fairly insignificant. But TriMet’s Portland-centric nature seems to be built into its governance, even though the region has greatly changed since 1969.
Anyone have access to the original legislation, Oregon House Bill 1808, March 1969? Is it time to try to amend that legislation to re-shape TriMet into a more truly regional agency?
Mike
…and Washington County has…none.
So, why was Washington Co Commuter Rail built?
Richard van Beveren has roots in Wash. Co. At one time he owned a restaurant in Aloha. Why he’s listed as representing SW Portland is a mystery, unless he moved into the city.
MIKE:
WOW, your getting as good as BOB R at finding information!
Thanks!
The Metro Council is elected by district and has huge sway over how federal transportation dollars are spent…transit, road, other. While it may defer to TriMet, cities and counties, the plans developed by the latter must conform to the RTP.
Metro Council is the only regionally elected government in the country; nowhere do “the people” have more direct say.
I believe that somewhere it is written that the Council could take the place of the TriMet Board; I often think they should take over the Port as well, another state agency and the region’s largest landlord.
For TriMet’s planning check out its TIP, Transportation Investment Program, which is updated annually.
Seattle has its challenges as well…Sound Transit is building light rail and commuter rail, King County Metro is only one of several local transit agencies, and then for a while the City of Seattle had the mono-rail deal going.
Democracy is messy.
Democracy is messy, but corporate democracy is well organized.
Who ever has the most influence ($$$) gets the public policy.
So, why was Washington Co Commuter Rail built?
TriMet wasn’t even involved with WES until the federal government handed the money; since the money HAD to go to a transit agency, TriMet then got involved.
Prior to then, Washington County and the City of Wilsonville were the lead agencies supporting the project. TriMet’s support was lukewarm at best.
(It should also be noted that TriMet’s efforts to improve transit access to WES amounts to a mention of a new bus line in Tigard to serve the western portion of the city, and re-routing the 96 line in Tualatin, but does not add/improve service in Tualatin. For example someone who lives in Beaverton and works at Meridian Park Hospital can’t effectively use WES because it will involve two transfers (from WES to the 96, and from the 96 to the 76 at Mohawk P&R – both of which are very poorly timed transfers.)
TriMet should be building a TRANSIT CENTER in Tualatin across the street from the WES station. There should be bus service so that one can use WES to get to employment centers in Tualatin. Unfortunately TriMet sees WES as a way for people to commute to Beaverton (and the MAX line) or a few people to get to Wilsonville (where comprehensive connecting bus service, operated by the City of Wilsonville, will exist).