The election of a new mayor in Vancouver, one who ran on the platform of a slimmed-down Columbia River Crossing that would not require tolls for funding, should be an opportunity to re-examine the fundamentals of the project.
The Oregonian editorial board is begging the presumed Mayor-elect to “shoulder the realities of this project”.
Meanwhile, a coalition of five organizations have called for a new plan under the moniker of “CRC 2.0”.
140 responses to “Time to Reconceptualize the CRC”
In my humble opinion, I think we should keep the light rail in the idea but use the preexisting bridge for light rail and expand it. Then we simply add two more normal 2 lane bridges to the Interstate to make it like the hawthorne. This way we save money and decrease congestion now with the new lanes and decrease it later with ever popular max which if portlands patterns carry over the river should keep 7500 cars off the road.
In my humble opinion, I think we should keep the light rail in the idea but use the preexisting bridge for light rail and expand it. Then we simply add two more normal 2 lane bridges to the Interstate to make it like the hawthorne. This way we save money and decrease congestion now with the new lanes and decrease it later with ever popular max which if portlands patterns carry over the river should keep 7500 cars off the road.
With a third interstate bridge and a route which would connect Vancouver to Hillsboro express buses would be a viable, cost effective transit solution.
Even more importantly for a third bridge, it can connect the Ports of Portland and Vancouver giving trucks a more direct route. It doesn’t even need to be an Interstate-class road to make a difference.
As we are re-thinking the CRC , I put forward the Concept of a Park-Roof for the CRC Bridge , which pays for itself by eliminating extensive and expensive pollution storm water treatment ! The Park Roof just drinks up the rain !
http://urbangreens.tumblr.com/tagged/Bill%20Badrick
Simple, solve the congestion problem for 81,000 daily highway users. The 1650 transit users do not require their own Billion dollar project.
Just the highway bridges should be cheap enough that tolls are not required with moderate spending by both states.. Tolls are ONLY required to build the toy train and other frills like rebuilding a bunch of OK, but not the best, interchanges.
The real scam going on here is to run up the cost of the road project to the point that they can convince the Feds to use the ROAD SPENDING as the local match for the worthless, $750 million toy train.
Thanks
JK
JK, who I have nothing against, says:
Simple, solve the congestion problem for 81,000 daily highway users. The 1650 transit users do not require their own Billion dollar project.
Cameron Johnson, who is a nice guy, replies:
I think you’re doing the math wrong. If 100,000 of the 1,000,000 people in Portland Ride MAX (excluding parts that are not within a few miles from it,) then I’d say 15,000 of the 150,000 in Vancouver would ride MAX a day. Without Taxes, that would be $12,000,000, and that is not even counting the citywide tax increase, which would raise, say, 2 bucks a person and 5 a business, count on, say (just guesswork), another Million. And how can 1,650 people drive 7,500 cars? That would be the reverse of carpooling. :) And, if they simply do as little new construction as possible i.e. run on current Railroad tracks, then we would probably have a pricetag of a couple hundred million, and from what I hear, people could use it, it would be a lot easier than having to deal with being stuck in traffic on bus and car, and would pay for itself in 15 years.
Like I said, I’m no professor. But this is my opinion. I look forward to this. Thanks
Cameron
Watch out for Cameron JK, this kid’s got notebooks full of transit/trimet related stuff.
Y’know, I’ve been following the CRC for a while now, and I’m pretty sure a toy train isn’t any part of the project. Karlock keeps going on about one, and apparently he’s against it, but I haven’t seen any mention of it anywhere else.
Anyway, I’m pretty sure that if they did build a toy train, for whatever reason, it wouldn’t cost anywhere near the numbers he’s citing. He’s off by several orders of magnitude. The figure’s he’s talking about sound more like the budget of a real-world, work-horse rail transit system that moves tens of thousands of people every day.
Douglas K. Says:
Y’know, I’ve been following the CRC for a while now, and I’m pretty sure a toy train isn’t any part of the project.
JK:
A toy is something that costs too much and does too little. A perfect description of light rail.
Thanks
JK
Cameron Johnson, who is a nice guy, replies:
I think you’re doing the math wrong.
JK:
I am just looking at current users, not some speculations as to future use. If demand shows up in the future, then the appropriate projects can be built at that time. Note that projections of future riders on this line rely on building high density housing all over Vancouver.
Thanks
JK
JK, that’s not the definition of “toy”. Here’s a copy of the definition:
toy?
–noun
1. an object, often a small representation of something familiar, as an animal or person, for children or others to play with; plaything.
2. a thing or matter of little or no value or importance; a trifle.
3. something that serves for or as if for diversion, rather than for serious pratical use.
4. a small article of little value but prized as a souvenir or for some other special reason; trinket; knickknack; bauble.
5. something diminutive, esp. in comparison with like objects.
6. an animal of a breed or variety noted for smallness of size: The winning terrier at the dog show was a toy.
7. a close-fitting cap of linen or wool, with flaps coming down to the shoulders, formerly worn by women in Scotland.
8. a simple, light piece of music, esp. of 16th or 17th century England, written for the virginal.
Since I assume you mean it as a noun, I won’t bother with the verb forms, or the repetitive adjectives. Which real definition are you using, or are you just trying to be condescending about supporters of LRT?
I’ve been reluctant to get too much into the CRC debate as I have friends on the project. That said, *if* it were to be cancelled, and *if* we still wanted to make a difference, how about running a commuter train over the existing rail infrastructure?
Yes, we’d need to modify the rail bridge to make it better for river traffic, and yes we’d likely need stations, park and rides, and so forth to make it work, so it wouldn’t be cheap, but neither would it be anywhere near $4.2 billion (or likely even anywhere near $1b).
It would also likely be cheaper than light rail whilse serving more geographic areas (if it ran to, say, Camas and Longview).
Lastly, because it is not an HST/light rail line, it’s more likely that Clark County voters would be culturally comfortable with it.
JK: I am just looking at current users, not some speculations as to future use. If demand shows up in the future, then the appropriate projects can be built at that time. Note that projections of future riders on this line rely on building high density housing all over Vancouver.
Waiting until the problem has become overwhelming to start looking at alternatives is no way to approach communities, particularly when the solution takes years to build out.
There is no “speculation” about it, because we’ve seen this play out on the exiting MAX lines (except the Green Line, which is too new): if you build it, they will ride it–including a lot of people who would never ride the bus.
Jeff F:
if you build it, they will ride it–including a lot of people who would never ride the bus.
JK:
How about those people who QUIT using transit because MAX is slower and less convenient than the bus was. One survey showed that when you account for these, there was NO NET increase in transit use, only a big increase in capitol cost.
Thanks
JK
JK wrote:A toy is something that costs too much and does too little.
So you’re claiming the CRC is a toy bridge?
“How about those people who QUIT using transit because MAX is slower and less convenient than the bus was. One survey showed that when you account for these, there was NO NET increase in transit use, only a big increase in capital cost.”
>>>> That’s been my feeling for a long time. The poorly performing MAX feeder buses tell all.
BTW, where can I read this survey.
My humble opinion: NOTHING is ever going to be built here, at least in our lifetimes. So stop making much ado about nothing.
JK, your constant reference to “toy trains” is juvenile. Surely you can make your arguments without resorting to name-calling; we don’t make jokes about toy SUVs or such.
Light Rail in Portland is a toy. It looks “cool,” and is “fun” to ride but it doesn’t really do anything a bus can’t do.
Can you fit 350 passengers on a bus?
Even with double-deckers or articulated models, the answer is “no”.
There’s one thing that light rail can do–even given the two-car limit currently imposed by downtown Portland’s short block length, LRT can haul a whole lot more people per vehicle (and more importantly for the bottom line, per driver) than can busses. Given that Portland’s MAX trains do routinely run at crush loads during rush hour, attempting to place MAX with busses, even BRT, would result in about three times the number of vehicles during rush hour.
Some around here act as though Tri-Met should only bother serving the City of Portland, and that modes designed for longer-distance commutes (such as LRT) are things we shouldn’t bother with.
Can you fit 350 passengers on a bus?
Watta ya talking about? They do it all the time! When the trains all decide to not run!
Al, please check your numbers. A 60-foot articulated bus has a crush capacity of 250. MAX has successfully handled a crush capacity exceeding 500 per car (usually this high extreme isn’t seen except on the trains after midnight on New Year’s, and involves people standing on the seats, but it’s happened).
EngineerScotty: , attempting to place MAX with busses, even BRT, would result in about three times the number of vehicles during rush hour.
JK: That would then be 1/3 the headway: every 5 min instead of 15 or every 10 instead of 1/2 hr.
Sounds like a good deal for the passengers. (You know those pesky things that cost the system money every time one boards.)
Thanks
JK
That would then be 1/3 the headway: every 5 min instead of 15 or every 10 instead of 1/2 hr.
Sounds like a good deal for the passengers. (You know those pesky things that cost the system money every time one boards.)
Every half hour is what you think MAX runs? A quick check at this moment to Transit Tracker for the Lloyd Center stop shows trains every 8-9 minutes on a Saturday morning at 6:20 am. On a Saturday. At 6:20 am.
Please check your work and try again.
JK: How about those people who QUIT using transit because MAX is slower and less convenient than the bus was. One survey showed that when you account for these, there was NO NET increase in transit use, only a big increase in capitol cost.
Which people were those, JK? And when? Could you please cite a source when you make a counter-intuitive claim like that?
Likewise, please cite the survey you reference. I’d especially be interested in the date of the survey in relation to which service is covered. This is like your also unsubstantiated claim that most MAX riders were previously bus riders. Which riders and when? And how do those numbers compare to today’s riders?
Once again, Joe Cortright has another short, succinct, fact-based letter in today’s Oregonian.
(They don’t seem to have it on Oregonlive at this time).
Basically, what he says is that this is a bridge nobody wants, and everyone wants someone else to pay for it.
Can you fit 350 passengers on a bus?
Try riding the 72-Killingsworth/82nd during rush hour and/or when the high schools are out for the day. It sure feels like it.
“EngineerScotty: , attempting to place MAX with busses, even BRT, would result in about three times the number of vehicles during rush hour.
JK: That would then be 1/3 the headway: every 5 min instead of 15 or every 10 instead of 1/2 hr.”
>>>> Interstate Avenue is the first thing that comes to mind. Because of a very poorly designed LRT system, the best they can do is 15 minutes during rush hour, unless they want to cut out Blue Line trains.
Plus, with buses, you could also have signal pre-emption, as well as limited-stop and local buses, and one-seat service to Jantzen Beach and Vancouver.
Portland light rail SUCKS, in the opinion of this non-driver and transit user (and transit geek, too).
“Which people were those, JK? And when? Could you please cite a source when you make a counter-intuitive claim like that? ”
>>>> I once heard some one at a dinner say that when the Westside MAX opened, he went back to driving because he lost his direct bus to downtown.
A friend of mine who lived in Sandy at the time told me his commute went from 30 minutes to an hour and 10 minutes when the Eastside MAX opened.
God only knows how many potential customers are lost to the transit system because we are sticking ourselves with obsolete and inflexible mode, which seems designed for the pleasure of rainfans.
“Every half hour is what you think MAX runs? A quick check at this moment to Transit Tracker for the Lloyd Center stop shows trains every 8-9 minutes on a Saturday morning at 6:20 am. On a Saturday. At 6:20 am.”
>>>> And thanks for ‘cherry-picking’ a short segment of the system where 3 different services run. Gateway to Rose Quarter is by no means representative of the level of service as a whole.
First my background. I live in Vancouver and I come from a rail family and have studied rail transit my whole life. I even worked for KC Metro answering telephone questions for a couple of years in the 1970’s. So I’m a pro-transit person all the way.
However, I do believe that given the Regional Transit Council’s decision to adopt Bus Rapid Transit for Clark County trunk routes means that bringing Max over the CRC in the “Minimum Operable Segment” proposed is a colossal waste of money.
I think that Tri-Met should extend it to Jantzen Beach in a way that’s compatible with a possible future extension to Vancouver in thirty or forty years if Vancouver grows and does so in a way that supports LRT needs for density. But paying $700 million to bring it across the river for the single-digit thousands of people it might carry, assuming downtown Vancouver becomes a mid-rise residential cluster, is stupid. Most commuters will not ride the BRT to downtown Vancouver and then the slow, many stops Max to downtown Portland across the congested Interstate Avenue bridge. C-Tran will still have to run the express buses at the commute peaks.
Now given Oregon’s adamant opposition to the twelve-lane bridge without LRT, the plan must be scaled back to something that the city can accept. They own the current structures and control access to the south end of any replacement bridge. Even if Washington had the means to build the bridge as we would like it (it doesn’t), it would end up hanging in the air if Oregon did not agree to connect to it. (I know this is a stupid hypothetical, but it’s true; they hold a veto over the design).
What I’d like to see is a new bridge built with a total of eight lanes between Victory Boulevard and Mill Plain only, omitting the non-trivial costs of proposed interchange improvements in Clark County. One of the through lanes should be peak-direction peak-hour HOV extending the Oregon side existing northbound lane and the one that’s going in southbound soon.
That reflects the fact that about one lane’s worth of traffic on the Oregon side is bound to or from one of three feeders that connect just south of the bridge and that the freeway north of Mill Plain plus SR14’s contribution total four through lanes on the Washington side.
The three Oregon side feeders are Jantzen Beach, Marine Drive/MLK, and SR99W at Victory.
Oregon will never agree to widen the freeway through North Portland, so having more lanes than four will just dump cars onto Portland residential streets and replicate the current Victory Blvd backup.
However, omitting Max from the bridge removes $700 million of the funding for it, so the states are still faced with the need to pay for the new structure. Removing Max reduces the cost from $3.8 billion to $3.1 billion. Narrowing by four lanes probably reduces the cost for the cross-river structure by three or four hundred million to maybe $2.8 billion. And foregoing the interchange improvements probably saves another three hundred million. Thus a slimmed down project will cost about $2.5 billion with no special Federal participation beyond the two states’ fuel tax revenue sharing allocations.
So regardless of the mayor-elect’s pipe dreams there will have to be tolls, and they’ll have to be on both bridges for congestion control. A smaller bridge without LRT and the Clark County interchange improvements would allow the tolls would be smaller and last a shorter time. But as a policy matter they’re inevitable to control congestion even if nobody builds anything.
Replacing LRT running at 15 minute headways with BRT running at 5 would be nice–except who is going to pay for 3x the drivers? That’s the major advantage of of trains vs busses (even in a similar alignment)–for high capacity routes they are cheaper to operate.
JK’s arguments in support of busses vs trains I generally consider specious–he’s against all forms of publicly-funded transit, from what I can gather; and views bus as the lesser of two evils because he thinks it costs him lest money.
Nick and Al both have a better point–not about bus vs rail per se–instead, they focus on the question of where Tri-Met should focus its limited operational dollars. There are many in town, and I suspect that this is Nick’s main beef with MAX, who think that Tri-Met should focus on providing excellent service in town (in the city limits of Portland, especially), and object to MAX (Al less so) because it provides service for longer-distance (i.e. suburban) commuters. Given the zero-sum nature of Tri-Met budgeting, this often means reducing service to those in town, which include a higher number of transit-dependent people, or at least people who choose to live close to downtown due to the availability of high-quality transit.
The Green Line is a good example of this (in particular, the I-205 segment): Numerous frequent service bus lines with a more direct route into town cross its path; the Green is unlikely to attract any bus riders. Instead, most of the stops along I-205 have a park-and-ride nearby; I suspect a good chunk of Green riders are Clackamas County commuters who work downtown and used to drive. While this is good for the environment; it’s not so good for those who have seen service cuts as a result.
The problem is–Tri-Met receives a big chunk of its funding from Washington and Clackamas Counties, especially the former, and both have been whining loudly about poor service. In Washington County, the only frequent service WE get is MAX, the 57 (which is a feeder line), and the 12. The 54/56 duplex comes close (out to Raleigh Hills), but that’s it.
Given that Tri-Met serves the tri-county area, it should SERVE the tri-county area. While Portland, having greater density, is easier to support good transit in–Tri-Met is FTMP useless out here unless you live along the MAX line or the #12.
(Unfortunately, Washington County had a good chance to improve things, and blew it with WES…)
Tri-Met, of course, knows this–and the county governments make sure they do. But a few posters here seem to think that the agency’s mission is, or ought to be, to make sure folks in Albina or Hollywood or Belmont or Lents have a quick ride downtown, and that service to suburban commuters should only be viewed as a luxury.
Scotty,
How should of Washington County improved things and how did they mess things up with WES? I know there were some folks in Washington County gov’t that were pushing WES, were there alternatives? I really don’t remember the debate.
Jeff F Says:
JK: How about those people who QUIT using transit because MAX is slower and less convenient than the bus was. One survey showed that when you account for these, there was NO NET increase in transit use, only a big increase in capitol cost.
Which people were those, JK? And when?
JK:
Sources:
1. There was a report on the OTI web site that referenced a Trimet survey done shortly after the first MAX line opened. I forgot the details, but the result was that so many people QUIT using transit, that there was NOT NET increase in transit riders due to MAX. This is hinted at by US Census data that shows little/no net transit increase over the years, in terms of market share. (Trimet never reports this, only absolute numbers which have increased with population.)
2. I have been told that the express bus on the congested Banfield was faster than MAX, so it is reasonable that some got tired of wasting time. Bandfield MAX got even slower over the years as stations were added
3. I was at one neighborhood meeting while the Interstate line was being discussed and one person said that their wife could not walk the longer distance to the MAX stop and would go back to driving.
4. When I was taking pictures of the MAX train that ran the red light in Hillsboro, I talked to a few people and was told that they had relatives/friends who went back to driving because MAX was slower than the bus it replaced.
5. Many people used to be able to have a NON-TRANSFER trip to city center, but now must transfer. This is especially a problem when the transfer point is in a crime-infested neighborhood.
Jeff F Says: This is like your also unsubstantiated claim that most MAX riders were previously bus riders. Which riders and when? And how do those numbers compare to today’s riders?
JK: You won’t find any credible, knowledgeable person deny that many rail riders were previous bus riders. The debate centers on how many: 50%?; 90%? Bus lines are usually shut down or re-routed so the riders HAVE TO go to rail. Locally, the I-5 Task force acknowledged this in their projections.
Thanks
JK
JK, anecdotes are not evidence of anything, especially when the anecdotes are third hand and relate to one or two people. You cannot make broad generalizations about people’s behavior based on a comment someone made to you at a meeting.
Increased ridership is increased ridership, whether it’s a proportional increase or not. That’s part of what it means to “plan” ahead.
Whoever told you an express bus on the Banfield was faster than MAX was wrong and furthermore the bus would have nowhere near the capacity of the train. All you need to do is ride MAX during rush hour and look at traffic on the freeway to realize this is nonsense. Any bus on the Banfield is moving at the same speed as the rest of the traffic. At 5 pm, it takes the train 16 minutes to get from Rose Quarter to Gateway. Try this in a car.
There also have been NO stations added along the Banfield (or the entire eastside MAX alignment, for that matter–one is planned in Gresham but has yet to be built). I have no idea where you got that idea, or how nonexistent stations could have slowed MAX down. If you can prove that run times have increased, please trot out the numbers.
Likewise, I don’t know what you’re talking about in reference to bus commutes, especially on the Eastside. Bus routes in outer northeast were largely converted to feeder routes in 1986, true, but they mostly feed to Gateway, which is nowhere near a crime-infested neighborhood.
JK: You won’t find any credible, knowledgeable person deny that many rail riders were previous bus riders. The debate centers on how many: 50%?; 90%? Bus lines are usually shut down or re-routed so the riders HAVE TO go to rail. Locally, the I-5 Task force acknowledged this in their projections.
Well, I’m a credible knowledgeable person who has been working with those riders for 25 years. At the time the first MAX service opened, a lot of riders did shift to rail, because it was better service. On the Westside, the same thing happened, along with a ton of riders who wouldn’t set foot on a bus under any circumstances. The only bus line shut down because of MAX was the 5-Interstate, which shared the same right of way. It is a myth to state that bus routes are “usually shut down or re-routed” to force people onto trains.
More importantly, whatever number of MAX riders formerly rode the bus is from 1986 or 1998. Since 1999, ridership on MAX has doubled. You surely don’t want to claim that that increase came from the bus side, do you?
You’re welcome.
If anything, performance of the eastside line has increased due to the removal of the single-track section in Gresham a few years back.
Washington County was a big proponent of WES (and is funding part of its operations), as they wanted quality transit along the 217 corridor–which isn’t a bad idea.
Unfortunately, they built commuter rail instead.
A service that only runs during commute hours, on half-hour headways, is not a good transit service. And the distance is too short to be a good commuter service, either (a commuter line between Portland and Salem, for instance, would make far more sense). Couple that with the operational difficulties of operating on a freight line… it wasn’t a particularly good idea.
The money would have been better spent on trying to build a LRT line–or on adding frequent service bus routes in Washington County that don’t just run downtown. (Of course, any bus route not running in its own ROW would have reliablity problems, given Washington County traffic–which is one reason we really need a MAX line in the corridor).
I’ll take anecdotes over Trimet “figures” any day.
And I’ve sure heard enough of them in my 8 1/2 years in Portland.
Jeff F:
At 5 pm, it takes the train 16 minutes to get from Rose Quarter to Gateway. Try this in a car.
JK:
Sorry, few people’s destination/origin is at the Rose Quarter. The more realistic time is 24 min from downtown to Gateway. Or 47 minutes from downtown to Gresham
I assume you know that, nationally, transit commute times are about double those of driving a car: http://www.portlandfacts.com/commutetime.html
More debunking later.
Nice try
JK
Scotty, I am very well aware of the transit problems of Washington County. Since I love to explore around, I have gone almost everywhere in most of the Portland Metro area BY TRANSIT, so I know most of the system like the back of my hand.
A big problem with Wash. County is that a good part of the bus system is designed to feed MAX and not serve the communities properly. A cursory look at the Trimet system map will show this. Unattractive transit options lead to very poorly performing bus lines, so thus no increase in frequencies.
Another part of the problem is that the failure to construct a busway system* when land was more easily available made Wash. County antsy, and it pushed hard for WES, as it appeared that the railroad ROW was the only place faster, limited stop service between Beaverton and Wilsonville could be placed. Now you know what we’re stuck with.
*due in part to the railfan culture of Trimet and Metro, established in the 70s and 80s by the likes of Jim Howell and Ray Polani.
A big problem with Wash. County is that a good part of the bus system is designed to feed MAX and not serve the communities properly.
BINGO! Give that man a ceeeegar!
JK: Sorry, few people’s destination/origin is at the Rose Quarter. The more realistic time is 24 min from downtown to Gateway. Or 47 minutes from downtown to Gresham
Eight minutes more from downtown as opposed to the Rose Quarter. And your point is? Are you going to claim that any vehicle on the Banfield is going to make up that eight minutes?
And, JK, why did you ignore everything else in my comment? If you’re “debunking” later, will you actually respond to those questions and the data?
I assume you know that, nationally, transit commute times are about double those of driving a car:
I assume you will eventually revise your assumptions about the Banfield, the nonexistent “new” stations and travel times. Throwing chaff from one of your websites about national numbers appears to be an admission that you cannot provide data to substantiate your claims in regard to the Portland metro region and MAX.
Nice try JK
Thanks. I do appreciate the acknowledgment and I look forward to you actually addressing the issues raised.
Nick theoldurbanist Says: *due in part to the railfan culture of Trimet and Metro, established in the 70s and 80s by the likes of Jim Howell and Ray Polani.
Jim Howell? You mean the same Jim Howell who proposed using existing right of way to Milwaukie nearly two decades back, and proposed using ancient DMUs for service rather than spending millions on new infrastructure and light rail cars? The same Jim Howell who not only proposed single time point schedules for buses but actually created pilot route schedules and stuck them up on bus stops in NE Portland?
Jim Howell is one of the dreaded “railfans”? You’re kidding, right?
Jim Howell is one of the dreaded “railfans”? You’re kidding, right?
hehe……..Jeff F is pissed!
hehe
Why would a (dedicated) busway be superior to a LRT for a Beaverton-Wilsonville service? Unless you are anticipating really low volumes on such a route (and Tri-Met apparently believes that real transit–not WES–on that corridor would be successful), if you are going to put in a dedicated ROW, you might as well lay tracks and string catenary.
If the reason that a west side busway wasn’t constructed back in the 70s when land was cheap was due to “railfans” at Tri-Met, methinks they would have put in LRT instead. Or at least gotten the ROW for it…
Is it fair to call you a “busfan”, BTW? The question is rhetorical–the site has a no personal remarks policy (a good thing), but if you are going to persist in claiming that transit planners have a unjustified rail bias, for whatever reason, is it fair to say the same about rail critics?
Jeff F Says: Are you going to claim that any vehicle on the Banfield is going to make up that eight minutes?
JK: “Any vehicle” might not take the Banfield. The route from downtown dumps directly onto Hawthorne, Powell, Burnside/Sandy or Belmont – very fast compared to going out of your way through the Rose Q and Lloyd center. There is also Glisan, Stark, Belmont, and Division, depending on where you really want to go as opposed to the Gateway station.
Then there is the laughable time to Clackamas town center of 40 min! Lets see: Ross Island Br to Powell to I205, about 10 miles probably 30 min during rush hour, with no waiting at stations and door to door service (time to/from stations also counts, you know). Looks like the I205 toy train will not be attracting a lot of drivers. Why don’t you tell us how much time bus riders can save by transferring to the new I205 toy over staying on the bus. Be sure to include wait time at the stations.
eff F Says: And, JK, why did you ignore everything else in my comment? If you’re “debunking” later, will you actually respond to those questions and the data?
JK: YES.
BTW, see: http://www.portlandfacts.com/maxtimes.html
BTW, since you are trying hard to discredit me, please expose yourself to the same risk by providing your last name.
Jim, glad to see that you, too, are an early riser. As for last names, I’m not sure why that matters. A consistent pseudonym is more important.
Just my two cents. I’m happy to provide my last name to folks I meet in person, and even have it in my email address with the comments I submit here, but the internet is way too impersonal for me to provide that much personal information.
Let’s address this first:
JK:BTW, since you are trying hard to discredit me, please expose yourself to the same risk by providing your last name.
I’m sorry you’re taking this so personally. I’m not “trying hard to discredit you,” but rather I am questioning specific assertions you have made and asking you to substantiate them with facts. I’m “debunking” your claims, if that makes sense to you.
If it matters, my last name is Frane. Jason McHuff has already made that public several times, as has Al. I fail to see what difference it makes.
JK: “Any vehicle” might not take the Banfield. The route from downtown dumps directly onto Hawthorne, Powell, Burnside/Sandy or Belmont – very fast compared to going out of your way through the Rose Q and Lloyd center. There is also Glisan, Stark, Belmont, and Division, depending on where you really want to go as opposed to the Gateway station.
Which circles right back to your original assertion that the introduction of MAX had made people’s commute longer. Since so many people continue to ride the 9, 12, 14, 15, 17… how has MAX increased the length of their commute?
For the time being, could we stick to the original discussion and the five sources you proffered, point by point, before moving on to a completely different issue: the Green Line.
It’s amazing that the precise cost of the light rail portion of the CRC is so elusive.
Celarly this is deliberate suppressing and obscuring by our public agencies.
Otherwise it would be common knowledge now and in news stories for public consideration.
In reality the $750 million is only for the light rail portion of CRC that is IN VANCOUVER.
Not the bridge portion or extension from EXPO.
That’s at least another BILLION.
But TriMet won’t clarify this. They insted prefer we argue about the specific cost all the way till approval when it’s too late.
Esentially it’s dishonest manipulation by public agencies who advocate an agenda which relies upon public deceit for forward movement.
Jeff F happens to be a very reliable blogger and commands a very high degree of respect at Trimet, which also includes me.
When your discussing facts with him you can be assured that he has done the appropriate research or has the knowledge already.
He doesn’t “make up” stuff.
John E. Says: In reality the $750 million is only for the light rail portion of CRC that is IN VANCOUVER.
JK: I added up the LRT numbers from the DEIS and got $750 million. See http://www.nobridgetolls.com/lowcostplanmap.html
John E. Says: Esentially it’s dishonest manipulation by public agencies who advocate an agenda which relies upon public deceit for forward movement.
JK: I consider the real deceit to be the lie that the feds require LRT. Also the projected ridership (based on major changes in the character of Vancouver.). Of course the cost will be lowballed and shifted to roads where possible.
Thanks
JK
Jeff F: could we stick to the original discussion and the five sources you proffered, point by point,
JK: Sure!
From OTI/webdoc2.htm (from my archive):
Table 5
MAX Versus Express Bus Travel Time from Gateway,
Morning Peak Hour Inbound Transit Service
Route……Route…………………————————Pk Hr———————– Transit
….#………Name…………………runs…….time……milage….MPH……stops……Agency
MAX…..Light Rail ……………….8……..20,……….7.2……..21.6……..11………TRI-MET
75……….Evergreen Express …..4……..18………..6.9……..23.0………0………C-TRAN
91……….MKC Flyer……………..7………18………..6.9……..23.0……..0………TRI-MET
1. The Downtown Portland terminus for all routes is 5th Avenue at Morrison Street (MAX Pioneer Place station).
2. All speeds shown are calculated from scheduled time and expressed as miles-per-hour. Time for the #91 Flyer (no longer in existence) would be the same from Gateway as the #76 as the routes are virtually identical.
3. The mileage and number of stops shown are between Gateway and the common Downtown Portland terminus.
From same document:
APPENDIX A : HOW MAX CHANGED THE TRANSIT SYSTEM
Tri-Met 1986 System Changes With MAX
When Tri-Met opened MAX in 1986, it drastically reduced direct bus service from East County to Downtown Portland, eliminating three entire routes and cutting service on three others. This service was replaced by MAX. To bring people to and from MAX, however, a large East County feeder bus system had to be created. This feeder bus system entailed many more routes, covering a much greater area, than had the direct bus service to Downtown it replaced. Therefore, a larger and more elaborate East County bus system was felt required to make MAX work.
At the inaugural of MAX in September 1986, the following specific changes were made by Tri-Met within what may now be called the MAX Corridor.
1) It began the MAX light rail line between Gresham and Downtown Portland with seven morning and eight afternoon peak hour trips.
2) It cut service on the #12 (formerly #14) Sandy Boulevard bus route (from eight to six morning and from six to five afternoon peak hour trips) and added three minutes to this route’s schedule be making it detour off Sandy Boulevard to go the Hollywood MAX station.
3) It cut service on the #19 Glisan Street bus route (from nine to five morning and from eight to five afternoon peak hour trips).
4) It cut service on the #20 Burnside Street bus route (from seven to six morning and afternoon peak hour trips).
5) It increased morning service on the #15 (formerly #21) Mount Tabor bus route (from six to eight peak hour trips).
6) It eliminated the #91 MKC Flyer express bus route which ran on the Banfield Freeway (seven morning and seven afternoon peak hour trips).
7) It eliminated the #18 Troutdale semi-express bus route on Halsey Street (two morning and two afternoon peak hour trips).
8) It eliminated the #40 Halsey Street bus route (five morning and five afternoon peak hour trips).
9) It continued the #80 GreshamTroutdale feeder bus route to the Gresham Transit Center but reduced its number of runs (from five to two morning and afternoon peak hour trips).
10) It effectively replaced the #18 Troutdale and #40 Halsey Street routes with nine new East County feeder bus routes. These nine routes joined MAX at either the Gateway Transit Center or the Gresham Transit Center. Another feeder bus route (#83) joined MAX at the Hollywood Transit Center. The ten feeder routes created in 1986 were as follows:
#22 Park Rose
#23 San Rafael
#24 Halsey Street
#25 GreshamGlisan (GlisanRockwood)
#26 Stark Street
#27 MarketMain Street
#81 RockwoodGresham (Gresham257th)
#82 Eastman182nd Avenue
#83 Hollywood47th Avenue
#84 SandyBoring
Looking forward to your analysis of this data.
Thanks
JK
I’m not aware of anyone saying the Federal Government requires Light Rail in this project. Clearly you can build a bridge without transit if you want to.
What’s been clearly articulated is that none of the policy makers on the Oregon side are interested in an auto bridge without high capacity transit. Neither TriMet, Metro or the City of Portland would support the project if it did not include transit.
JK: Looking forward to your analysis of this data.
I did note yesterday that the opening of the Eastside MAX service involved the creation of a network of feeder lines.
From your paper, this jumps out: This feeder bus system entailed many more routes, covering a much greater area, than had the direct bus service to Downtown it replaced. Therefore, a larger and more elaborate East County bus system was felt required to make MAX work.
“Many more routes, covering a much greater area…” In other words, bus service was *added* dramatically, and provided that service to more people in the area. Two routes were replaced by nine routes.
I don’t know if you remember the MKC bus, but “MKC” is the Multnomah Kennel Club, which was out in the middle of nowhere. According to your chart, it would have gotten downtown two minutes faster than MAX without providing service to anyone between Fairview and Portland, while the train made 11 stops. Which provided better service?
Without having ridership statistics, it’s difficult to know what impact was made on the rush hour trips cut on some of those longer lines. 23 years later, they’re healthy bus lines but it’s almost impossible to know what the initial effect might have been on riders.
First of all, if anyone is interested, I have a pre-Eastside MAX (copyright 1978) available here.
But I would just like to note that in recent times TriMet has combined the east county “feeder” routes with ones from downtown Portland–specifically Lines 77 & 24 and Lines 20 & 26. In addition, Line 12 was extended to Gresham, also not requiring people to transfer to get between the eastern portion of it and points in inner Portland.
Moreover, those express routes probably didn’t run outside of rush hours (and definitely not with the frequency and hours that MAX does) and didn’t help people who wanted to go to intermediate places.
The 24 and the 26 were ‘unhealthy’ feeder bus lines, running on 30 minute base minute headways with relatively low patronage. How do know? I was living down the block from Gateway TC at the time and saw/rode them. In Sept. 2001, they were combined with the 77 and 20 with 15 base minute headways out to Gresham, direct service to inner NE/SE Portland and downtown. Now there are quite ‘healthy’ bus lines.
The 22, 23, 25, and 27 feeder lines are still unhealthy. In fact, the 23, 25, and 27 lines are real basket cases and should be abandoned outright.
So much for the Trimet pro-rail propaganda about the greatly enhanced bus system that came with the opening of MAX.
JK: Here is the mention of added stations:
Why is MAX so slow ? The system probably began with too many stations yet more stations have been added. Only two stations were ever warranted in the Lloyd District and only two of the three original stations there have generated significant ridership. Yet Tri-Met added a fourth station in this area, midway between two of the original stations and only two-four short blocks from either. It added another station downtown. Both new stations serve government real estate developments (the Oregon Convention Center and Pioneer Place), the prevailing ideology of local government planners being to “build in” transit at central city developments. However, both developments were only a block and a half away from an original MAX station, a shorter distance than New York City’s Convention Center in Midtown Manhattan is from the nearest subway station
Same source as before.
Thanks
JK
“Is it fair to call you a “busfan”, BTW?”
>>>> Yes, it is very unfair to call me a busfan ONLY, since my great passion growing up was the NYC subway system (there was also a streetcar line with PCC’s and some Peter Witts under the el 3 blocks from our house in Brooklyn). This is where my interest (=hobby) in transit arose.
Also, if I am such a “busfan,” then please explain my past memberships in the Electric Railroaders’ Assoc., National Railway Historical Society, Shoreline (Conn.) Trolley Museum, etc.. all “railfan” organizations.
It is fair to call me a “transit fan.” I just go for the transit mode that is most efficacious for the situation. Here in Portland Metro, it’s buses. In NY and Chicago, it is rail in many places.
I don’t know about whether stops have been added, but I absolutely agree with JK’s assertion that there are too many stops between Lloyd Center and Goose Hollow. It seems to me that the number of stops could be cut in half without inconveniencing MAX riders.
Put me on the bus side of this discussion.
I think JK makes some good points!
And there is plenty of secrecy around here isn’t there!
Fred might as well be a CIA agent cause nobody but his inner circle actually knows what he’s up too everyday.
Relax, Nick–as stated previously, my “busfan” remark is strictly rhetorical–to illustrate how silly whining about “railfans” is.
To me, it sounds like your objection to MAX isn’t really because you don’t like things with steel wheels–your objections is because you think that a net reduction in service to certain parts of town was the result of its construction. Which is a legitimate objection, of course–but it’s not really an objection against rail; it’s an objection against Tri-Met’s service choices. If someone could snap their fingers and turn MAX into a real metro (underground running downtown, with about 40% the stops in the core area), would you feel better about it? If someone else snapped their fingers and turned the tracks into a busway, but without any other service changes, would you feel better about that?
I have to agree whole heartedly that there are WAY too many MAX stops downtown. In my opinion you could get rid of the MAC stop, the Pioneer Place Stop maybe the Old Town Stop and the Convention Center stop and not really change ridership or truly inconvenience people.
Unfortunately, given how slowly the train has to creep through downtown because it runs in a much more mixed traffic scenario, I’m curious how much time would actually be saved.
Some eastbound blue line weekday stop data from the spring 2009 passenger census:
Name, Station ID, direction, position, ons, offs, total
Goose Hollow/SW Jefferson St MAX Station, 10118, E, AT, 269, 1,186 1,455
Kings Hill/SW Salmon St MAX Station, 9759, N, AT, 245, 342, 587
PGE Park MAX Station, 9758, E, AT, 909, 498, 1,407
Library/SW 9th Ave MAX Station, 8333, E, AT, 1,539, 1,519, 3,058
Pioneer Square South MAX Station, 8334, E, AT, 1,410, 1,611, 3,021
Mall/SW 4th Ave MAX Station, 8335, E, AT, 1,598, 1,625, 3,223
Yamhill District MAX Station, 8336, E, AT, 1,117, 804, 1,921
Oak/SW 1st Ave MAX Station, 8337, N, NS, 639, 423, 1,062
Skidmore Fountain MAX Station, 8338, N, AT, 476, 487, 963
Old Town/Chinatown MAX Station, 8339, N, AT, 849, 619, 1,468
Rose Quarter TC MAX Station, 8340, E, AT, 1,313, 900, 2,213
Convention Center MAX Station, 8341, E, AT, 528, 547, 1,075
NE 7th Ave MAX Station, 8342, E, FS, 540, 865, 1,405
Lloyd Center/NE 11th Ave MAX Station, 8343, E, AT, 1,264, 1,960, 3,224
The census was taken before the mall was reopened, some of the 4th street passengers presumably would have moved to Pioneer Square South.
It looks like Kings Hill/Salmon and Skidmore Fountain have the lowest numbers. Oak/1st comes in third, but is next to Skidmore. Convention Center is fourth, but is important to out-of-towners who are unfamiliar/leery of the area.
I’m a MAX supporter for the most part, but yeah, I wouldn’t mind seeing a few stations axed. Kings Hill/Salmon might be the most glaring example… isn’t the PGE Park stop less than two blocks away?
JK: Here is the mention of added stations:
Oops. I should have quit while I was ahead when I wrote this: “There also have been NO stations added along the Banfield (or the entire eastside MAX alignment”
My memory is fading. It is true that no stations have been added along the Banfield, but I’d forgotten about work done in 1990. Everyone around here was scratching their heads about downtown stations, including people who were actually here in 1990. We added three stations altogether; one at the Convention Center, and the stations at Mall/5th Ave and Mall/4th Ave.
My apologies to JK.
Doug: I don’t know about whether stops have been added, but I absolutely agree with JK’s assertion that there are too many stops between Lloyd Center and Goose Hollow. It seems to me that the number of stops could be cut in half without inconveniencing MAX riders.
You won’t get much disagreement on that subject, although taking stops away really upsets people–case in point being the Transit Mall as it looks today. At the time the original work was done, however, the same could be said of bus stops on the Mall. It’s obvious that people tend to like the old two-block frequency of stops and dislike having to walk farther now.
We should close all the bus and train stops, except for those in front of wherever I want to go.
:)
EngineerScotty Says: We should close all the bus and train stops, except for those in front of wherever I want to go.
I was thoroughly supportive of streamlining efforts on Holgate — and then moved into an apartment where the stops (both directions) had been removed. Suddenly it didn’t have the same appeal.
I consulted two friends who were actively involved in MAX at the time. Here is the un-edited response from the first (the one that worked for Metro as a transportation planner):
This Jeff guy is dead wrong on every major claim he makes but I need time to dig out the sources refuting this. There has never been any real objective study of the impact of MAX other than the one I did years ago. However, for him to believe all this reflects a remarkable degree of authoritarian thinking as on any one of these issues the facts have been available for anyone who questioined what the local authorities have been saying. Some examples:
1) I dug up the old pre-MAX Tri-Met schedules at the Tri-Met Library to compare to the present mAX schedule. These show that the pre-MAX express bus from Gresham Transit Center took only two minutes more to reach downtown than MAX does today — given the higher access time of walking to reach stations, this means total travel time by both was about equal.
2) The U.S. Census Journey to Work data for 1980 & 1990 show that the share of work trips by transit for Portland’s East Side MAX Corridor declined, as it did for all the Portland metro area. It also shows that the market share of work trips for census tracts along this line outside the Central City to be around 2-3%, highest at Gateway (5%) – this shows the hollow promise of the “transit-oriented development” such as Cascade Station (PDX) as the vast majority will come by auto. This Census data also shows the increase in the number of autos owned per household in the Corridor & the increase in transit travel time. Taking a “feeder” bus to MAX, then MAX to downtown generally took longer than taking one direct bus to downtown, 20 minutes longer for those in the Halsey Street corridor. This not an “anecdote” from a few, it’s what’s demonstrated by Federal Census data to be generally true.
3) I have ODOT memoranda on the pre-MAX HOV lane on the Banfield, showing that the HOV (carpool + bus) share of all people travel on the Banfield was about one-third, higher than today with MAX. The HOV lane, a fairly crummy one compared to others which the establishment wanted to fail, was far more successful than MAX in reducing auto travel. The express bus riders were questioned about their “former mode” & 44% said autos; the similar data on MAX has never been released as it was far smaller. The tendency for express bus to dig much deeper into the auto market has long been well documented (I’ve got results from many other of these surveys), so much so, that the Congresional Budget Office concluded that the modal diversion potential of express bus was far better than light rail in its study on reducing energy use in transport in 1977. Data since then confirms this. Portland bet on the wrong horse.
4) The institution of MAX in 1986 led to a decrease in direct bus service, which people usually can walk to, shifted riders to LRT service they usually drive autos to. The Metro data clearly shows the net effect was therefore to increase, not decrease, auto trips. As a top forecaster at Metro put it to me when I worked there the plan has been “to turn bus riders into trolley riders”. That is all that was accomplished.
Thanks
JK
JK, I think your friend needs some lessons in decorum, if nothing else. I am not a victim of authoritarian thinking, thanks.
Jeff F Says: JK, I think your friend needs some lessons in decorum, if nothing else. I am not a victim of authoritarian thinking, thanks.
JK: I think he means that you trusted their false stories.
Thanks
JK
JK, I’ve been here 25 years. I draw my own conclusions and haven’t needed to rely on stories, false or otherwise.
Frankly, I’m baffled about what “stories” you and your friend refer to. I’m interested to hear some specifics.
JK: Comparing 1980 auto/transit conditions to almost 30 years in the future is a bit irrelevant. Furthermore, let’s see those pre-MAX statistics and evidence, rather than submitting your hearsay testimony of your “friends” to us all.
[personally directed comment removed]
ws Says:
JK: Comparing 1980 auto/transit conditions to almost 30 years in the future is a bit irrelevant. Furthermore, let’s see those pre-MAX statistics and evidence, rather than submitting your hearsay testimony of your “friends” to us all.
JK: I have started converting the files for the old OTI site and hope to post them soon. They contain lots of details and extensive references .
[personally direct comment removed]
As to the friend who WAS a Metro planner. He has not been with Metro for a number of years and he is now a realist about light rial and smart growth.
BTW, one of light rail’s biggest critics, Wendall Cox, was the one who got a sales tax initiated to pay for the first light rial line in LA. He saw what a waste it was and became a critic.
Another major LRT critic, Tom Rubin, was the CFO of one LA transit system during construction of light rail. He also say first hand what a waste LRT is. You can see his description of it at:
http://blip.tv/file/2743664
Thanks
JK
PS: One of several videos of Wendell Cox is at http://blip.tv/file/2648135
Thanks
JK
My comments are regarding your anecdotal quotes. Where’s the evidence for such statements?
ws Says: My comments are regarding your anecdotal quotes. Where’s the evidence for such statements?
JK: Why don’t you come up with some contrary evidence?
Thanks
JK
Come on folks. You know the rules. Avoid the personal remarks!
There’s lots of folks who think Tri-Met is wrong to promote rail. Many of them are libertarians ideologically opposed to any public infrastructure… and some of them are not-bright libertarians who fail to realize the amount of public subsidy granted to the automobile (or don’t care, because that’s what they have in the garage).
JK’s correspondent referred to Jeff as an “authoritarian”; a term of abuse which is rather popular with libertarians (although one which seems to mean nothing more than “non-libertarian”).
I have to agree whole heartedly that there are WAY too many MAX stops downtown. In my opinion you could get rid of the MAC stop, the Pioneer Place Stop maybe the Old Town Stop and the Convention Center stop and not really change ridership or truly inconvenience people.
I would agree with all, but the parking garage near the Old Town stop gives it a bit of extra value. It’s a particularly useful one for people who live near downtown and want easily accessible parking to drop someone off to get to the airport. It’s also one of the few reasons anyone I know goes to Old Town, and I think it has a TriMet Police station already built at it. The Skidmore Fountain stop makes more sense to me overall, but either one would anger someone.
Unfortunately, given how slowly the train has to creep through downtown because it runs in a much more mixed traffic scenario, I’m curious how much time would actually be saved.
One advantage of studying a subway is many downtown stops could be connected (as well as the longer sets, less vehicle conflicts as more trains are run, etc). Being able to connect MAC & PGE, Pioneer Square & the Mall, Skidmore & Oldtown, as well as maybe Rose Quarter & Convention Center and 7th & Lloyd Center. Some are kind of far apart, but it could probably be made to work.
I have to think eliminating 5 stops, cross traffic, and train length limitations would improve MAX a ton. I just hate to think of the cost.
Yes, we’d need to modify the rail bridge to make it better for river traffic, and
yes we’d likely need stations, park and rides, and so forth to make it work, so it
wouldn’t be cheap, but neither would it be anywhere near $4.2 billion (or likely
even anywhere near $1b).
Actually, a commuter rail system would be that expensive, but it would be worth it
for two main reasons.
1. It would be cheap over time to operate those commuter trains. It would provide
Vancouver with a real commuting alternative instead of the silly 35+ minute MAX
Yellow Ride. That just is NOT going to garner much once it reaches, if it reaches
Vancovuer. Overall, even though the initial changes and outlay would be super
expensive, a commuter rail setup into Vancouver would be very valuable and after
inflation is factored in, probably THE cheapest way to transport riders to and
from downtown PDX.
2. The freight capacity on the freight rail system is internally bottlenecked in
the area. If Portland and Vancouver are serious about being environmentally
friendly they would jump at an opportunity to get freight moving more smoothly
through and into the area. Fixing the cluster @#$% that the bridge over the
Columbia & east/west route coming into Vancouver cases would enable BNSF, and even
Union Pacific to more many more trains through the area. In addition they would
most likely be VERY amenable to splitting the costs in large part for throughput
enhancements.
Overall, I’d say it is easily worth vastly more to do these enhancements, which
might be around $1 billion, shared with BNSF & UP (maybe UP), then to blow any
money on the continued and damnable subsidization of auto transport.
——————————————————————————–
?? – “How about those people who QUIT using transit because MAX is slower and less
convenient than the bus was. One survey showed that when you account for these,
there was NO NET increase in transit use, only a big increase in capital cost.”
Transit Sleuth – Yeah, ditto I want to read this survey. On another statistically
relevant point – that seems ridiculous. The MAX has enabled a ridership increase
for a price that buses couldn’t have met. This is a historical fact for the
original blue line, is approaching that fact for the west side blue line, and will
probably hold true for the Yellow, Red, and Green also. But I’d be interesting to
see the arguments. I read Cato, and other Libertarian material on a regular basis
and still hold very pro-free market operation of the transport in the US, even
though we don’t have anywhere near that option – especially for automobiles.
——————————————————————————–
EngineerScott – “JK, your constant reference to “toy trains” is juvenile. Surely
you can make your arguments without resorting to name-calling; we don’t make jokes
about toy SUVs or such.”
Transit Sleuth – Actually, an SUV would be more accurate to call a “toy” than the
light rail. The light rail serves as a mode that brings thousands of people into
Portland. This is the purpose of light rail. SUVs however rarely can effectively
go off road, maintain endurance, and some are such toys that they have front wheel
drive. Seriously, that is very toy by the definition provided.
——————————————————————————–
Anthony – Light Rail in Portland is a toy. It looks “cool,” and is “fun” to ride
but it doesn’t really do anything a bus can’t do.
Transit Sleuth – Except it does it, over a 20 year span for 1/2 of what buses do
from an operational experience, and if ODOT, City, and Rail costs are included it
maintains approximately a 20% (+-5%) savings over bus operation & capitol cost
over a 20 year time span. In addition as EngineerScotty points out, the bus
throughput carrying capacity doesn’t hold a candle to light rail.
——————————————————————————–
Al M – “Can you fit 350 passengers on a bus?” Watta ya talking about? They do it
all the time! When the trains all decide to not run!
Transit Sleuth – No they don’t. They use 4-6 buses to handle a bus bridge if MAX
goes down. Which immediately increases the cost of that service 1.x-5x what it
costs to run that same service on the MAX. YOu have 4-6 bus drivers vs. one
operator. One two car train vs up to 6 buses. There is no comparison here, and
the costs are outragous if buses actually have to attemp handling rush hour
capacity that the light rail handles. The buses are invaluable, but by no means a
replacement for the light rail trains. If the trains where replaced by buses
tomorrow the costs would skyrocket to at least 2-5x during rush hour what they are
now, and simply put, TriMet would not carry anywhere near the amount of people
they are able to during rush hour.
——————————————————————————–
Paul Johnson – Al, please check your numbers. A 60-foot articulated bus has a
crush capacity of 250. MAX has successfully handled a crush capacity exceeding 500
per car (usually this high extreme isn’t seen except on the trains after midnight
on New Year’s, and involves people standing on the seats, but it’s happened).
Transit Sleuth – I’m not buying that. 250 on a 60ft, they can barely handle much
more than the seated and standing crush rating of about 100+. One LRV doesnt’
much exceed the 255+ for crush capacity. Maybe 500 for a set of LRVs.
Essentially I would agree if you meant that. :) Still not buying 250 people on a
60ft bus. The physics don’t seem to be there.
——————————————————————————–
JK: That would then be 1/3 the headway: every 5 min instead of 15 or every 10
instead of 1/2 hr.
Transit Sleuth – Except after inflation and other costs are brought to bear it
isn’t good for the rider/taxpayer because the buses need replaced so much more
often, inflation hits them harder, they require the most expensive element (labor)
in greater number, and overall rack up higher costs for carrying less people.
That’s just the math though. Heaven forbid we go by anything intangible like what
people want/prefer or anything.
——————————————————————————–
Nick theoldurbanist – Portland light rail SUCKS, in the opinion of this non-driver
and transit user (and transit geek, too).
Transit Sleuth – There are truly some better ones than PDX’s. I love Portland’s
transit, it works really well, but compared to places like LA (strangely enough)
and a few other cities, it doesn’t work that well. LA has a fine light rail
system, and some BRT. Albeit they got ripped on the BRT and should have put in
light rail for the Orange Line – it can’t handle the capacity it has. The subway
however wasn’t really needed for the layout of the city, but at least gets decent
ridership.
——————————————————————————–
Anandkos – “I think that Tri-Met should extend it to Jantzen Beach in a way that’s
compatible with a possible future extension to Vancouver in thirty or forty years
if Vancouver grows and does so in a way that supports LRT needs for density. But
paying $700 million to bring it across the river for the single-digit thousands of
people it might carry, assuming downtown Vancouver becomes a mid-rise residential
cluster, is stupid. Most commuters will not ride the BRT to downtown Vancouver and
then the slow, many stops Max to downtown Portland across the congested Interstate
Avenue bridge. C-Tran will still have to run the express buses at the commute
peaks.”
Transit Sleuth – That’s the smartest, most clear statement regarding the pending
and possible catastrophe that is the CRC that I’ve heard. Well written!!
——————————————————————————–
Engineer Scotty – “Replacing LRT running at 15 minute headways with BRT running at 5 would be nice–except who is going to pay for 3x the drivers? That’s the major advantage of of trains vs busses (even in a similar alignment)–for high capacity routes they are cheaper to operate.
JK’s arguments in support of busses vs trains I generally consider specious–he’s against all forms of publicly-funded transit, from what I can gather; and views bus as the lesser of two evils because he thinks it costs him lest money.”
Transit Sleuth – I don’t get it, why do people keep thinking that just because the up front money for BRT seems cheaper, that the 3x the number (or more) for drivers that is needed doesn’t bite us (taxpayers) in the ass eventually? I’m lost on that math, it seems to exclude all sorts of missed $$.
Also JK is against all transit, and purports himself to be Libertarian even though he seems about as distantly connected to free-markets as the proletariat. He does have some decent information posted (somewhere, I forget) and generally pulls up some interesting bits every once in a while, but overall repeats the same toy train mantra all day long.
——————————————————————————–
Engineer Scotty – “(Unfortunately, Washington County had a good chance to improve things, and blew it with WES…)”
Transit Sleuth So very, unfortunately, true.
——————————————————————————–
JK – Trimet never reports this, only absolute numbers which have increased with population.
Transit Sleuth I’ll correct this for you. “TriMet never reports this, only absolute numbers which show increased ridership over 40% above population growth.” At some point I’ll go back and find the line in the report that showed this increase. It is easy to go find the numbers overall though. You’ll have to read my transit sleuth blog though – http://www.transitsleuth.com
——————————————————————————–
Jeff F- “Well, I’m a credible knowledgeable person who has been working with those riders for 25 years. At the time the first MAX service opened, a lot of riders did shift to rail, because it was better service. On the Westside, the same thing happened, along with a ton of riders who wouldn’t set foot on a bus under any circumstances. The only bus line shut down because of MAX was the 5-Interstate, which shared the same right of way. It is a myth to state that bus routes are “usually shut down or re-routed” to force people onto trains.
More importantly, whatever number of MAX riders formerly rode the bus is from 1986 or 1998. Since 1999, ridership on MAX has doubled. You surely don’t want to claim that that increase came from the bus side, do you?”
Transit Sleuth Thanks Jeff! I say ditto. :)
——————————————————————————–
Nick theoldurbanist – “A big problem with Wash. County is that a good part of the bus system is designed to feed MAX and not serve the communities properly.”
Transit Sleuth The other problem is that the west side is a sprawling mediocrity of the US. It is a standard, prepeated catastrophe in the US. The zoning, the city layouts have all been screwed up on the west side and leaves TriMet with very little choice as to server any particular place.
Do some math and figure out how much it would cost to server the west side the same as it costs TriMet to server the east side. I’d bet to server the sprawling mess of the west side would easily be 4-10x as much as the east side of Portland. Simply, it just isn’t feasible. For a prime example check out Jacksonville Florida’s transit. They spend vastly more per rider to cover the vast sprawling expanse, and overall by comparison it is a total and complete waste for that city (the city being a slight waste itself). The case I’m making is, the zonging, design, layout, and structure is more akin to the failure of places like Jacksonville. Service just cannot be provided, there isn’t enough money on the table anywhere in this country to provide a decent level for areas like that.
If the west side wasn’t such a mess then maybe service could be bumped up. But considering the conditions, it will be easily 40-60 years before it gets even close probably (I wont’ write off a miracle for the west side, like if they just got out of under TriMet and broke the Union and hired a bunch of really cheap skabs).
Ok, I’m done responding to everybody on the planet now. Back to work.
…and btw – not sure why it is a risk JK – by my name is Adron Hall. I just use TRansit Sleuth because that’s my blog name. Seriously though, “risk” for arguing transit nerd topics? What risk are you talking about? We aren’t talking about breaking Unions or throwing down the Mafia or anything (so sometimes I am, but I shoulder that risk.)
Anyway, Jeff F, JK, Al M, Nick theoldurbanist, and all the rest – thanks for a 30+ minute fun reading session. :)
JK Says: I have made several mentions to OTI recently here.
I have now placed my archived copy of the OTI web site on my web site at:
http://www.portlandfacts.com/OTI/index.html
I’ll eagerly await your comments on the many studies and reports there.
Unfortunately, I am not particularly familiar with the contents yet, so I am learning here too. Key items I noticed while reformatting the pages are the MAX passenger counts and the bike commuter counts, a defense of sprawl, Metro planners response and counter response, traffic count increase after MAX started and more!
Thanks
JK
ws Says:
My comments are regarding your anecdotal quotes. Where’s the evidence for such statements?
Adron Says:
?? – “How about those people who QUIT using transit because MAX is slower and less
convenient than the bus was. One survey showed that when you account for these,
there was NO NET increase in transit use, only a big increase in capital cost.”
Transit Sleuth – Yeah, ditto I want to read this survey.
Jeff F Well, I’m a credible knowledgeable person who has been working with those riders for 25 years. At the time the first MAX service opened, a lot of riders did shift to rail, because it was better service.
JK: According to my source Metro did not release the survey because they didn’t like the result. This may tell us why:
Even today the express bus is faster from Gateway to downtown:
Bus=14 min; MAX=26 min.
See: http://www.portlandfacts.com/maxtimebanfield.html
Jeff, do you call 86% longer “better service”? Not to mention forced transfers where direct service was previously provided. Transit losing as many people as MAX attracted is completely believable. Especially when you add in the census data from OTI.
Thanks
JK
Adron Says:
. . . Overall, even though the initial changes and outlay would be super expensive, a commuter rail setup into Vancouver would be very valuable and after inflation is factored in, probably THE cheapest way to transport riders to and from downtown PDX.
JK: Where the the thousands of riders required to make commuter rail work going to come from?
Adron Says:
On another statistically relevant point – that seems ridiculous. The MAX has enabled a ridership increase for a price that buses couldn’t have met. This is a historical fact for the original blue line, is approaching that fact for the west side blue line, and will probably hold true for the Yellow, Red, and Green also. But I’d be interesting to see the arguments.
JK: MAX costs MORE not LESS that buses. The error the transit people make is to compare rail on the most productive lines with buses on average lines. (Rail only replaces the most productive bus lines, so rail looks good and bus’ average gets worse.) When you compare the best bus lines to MAX, bus is cheaper. $0.34 for bus; $0.434 for rail. Compare this to a car at $0.25. And the car includes ALL costs, while neither bus nor rail costs include right of way costs. See: portlandfacts.com/transit/cost-cars-transit(2005)b.htm
Adron Says:
Transit Sleuth – Actually, an SUV would be more accurate to call a “toy” than the light rail. The light rail serves as a mode that brings thousands of people into Portland.
JK: Those “thousands” of people are a tiny fraction of Portland travel.
Adron Says:
Transit Sleuth – Except it does it, over a 20 year span for 1/2 of what buses do from an operational experience, and if ODOT, City, and Rail costs are included it maintains approximately a 20% (+-5%) savings over bus operation & capitol cost over a 20 year time span.
JK: This is a complete fantasy. Rail costs over $1.00 per passenger-mile, much more than bus. See portlandfacts.com/top10bus.html and the above refrence
Adron Says:
That’s just the math though. Heaven forbid we go by anything intangible like what
people want/prefer or anything.
JK: As long as transit riders are using public welfare, they should not expect the taxpayers to cater to their every want. Also buses appear to be better anyway: faster, closer to where people live (that’s why MAX needs feeder buses), no transfer to MAX.
Adron Says:
LA has a fine light rail system, and some BRT.
Here is what one person involved in its construction has to say: blip.tv/file/2743664
Adron Says:
Also JK . . . He does have some decent information posted (somewhere, I forget)
JK: PortlandFacts.com
Adron Says:
Transit Sleuth I’ll correct this for you. “TriMet never reports this, only absolute numbers which show increased ridership over 40% above population growth.” At some point I’ll go back and find the line in the report that showed this increase.
JK: Not holding my breath on that report. It would contradict US Census data.
Adron Says:
It is easy to go find the numbers overall though. You’ll have to read my transit sleuth blog though – http://www.transitsleuth.com
JK: If it is so easy for us, why don’t you provide an exact link to the specific info?
Adron Says:
Transit Sleuth The other problem is that the west side is a sprawling mediocrity of the US.
JK: That must be why they are growing faster than Portland
Adron Says:
Do some math and figure out how much it would cost to server the west side the same as it costs TriMet to server the east side.
JK: I’d love to see your math on this. Be sure to include capital costs and right of way, then compare to the cost of cars, which ar $0.25 / pm includes capital cost and right of way.
Thanks
JK
I consulted two friends who were actively involved in MAX at the time. Here is some comments from the second (A nationally known writer):
writer: He doesn’t offer any facts, just assertions.
Jeff F Says: Whoever told you an express bus on the Banfield was faster than MAX was wrong
writer: Before Max, TriMet had multiple express buses on the Banfield — one went a block from my parents house, got on the freeway, and went straight downtown from there. It was a lot faster than Max.
Jeff F Says: and furthermore the bus would have nowhere near the capacity of the train.
writer: Capacity is irrelevant. The average number of people on Portland light-rail cars is 28. Buses can easily carry that number.
Jeff F Says: At the time the first MAX service opened, a lot of riders did shift to rail, because it was better service.
writer: Pretty hard to prove from the data, as total TriMet ridership in the years immediately following the opening of the eastside line was not any greater than the years before.
Jeff F Says: On the Westside, the same thing happened, along with a ton of riders who wouldn’t set foot on a bus under any circumstances.
writer: The opening of the westside line did seem to coincide with a large increase in ridership. However, ridership started growing before the line opened, so the growth may have been due to other factors.
Jeff F Says: The only bus line shut down because of MAX was the 5-Interstate, which shared the same right of way. It is a myth to state that bus routes are “usually shut down or re-routed” to force people onto trains.
writer: I presume he is talking about the yellow line. On the blue and red lines, lots of buses were shut down or rerouted into feeder buses. Certainly, the Halsey express bus that I once used is no more.
Jeff F Says: More importantly, whatever number of MAX riders formerly rode the bus is from 1986 or 1998. Since 1999, ridership on MAX has doubled. You surely don’t want to claim that that increase came from the bus side, do you?
writer: Max ridership doubled since 1999, but total transit ridership grew by only 23 percent.
The IRS allows taxpayers to deduct $0.55 per mile as a standard allowance for business use of a private car. Is the extra $0.30 another subsidy to motorists? (They allow much less for charitable or moving uses.)
A nationally known writer? Writer of what? Citing anonymous “experts” doesn’t get you anywhere, JK…
I remember one novelist writing a novel back in the 1990s, which featured a few scenes set on the MAX blue line–which, in the novel, was abandoned during construction after issues drilling the tunnel proved insurmountable. Needless to say, his prediction did not come to pass.
Can’t remember what book it was, or who the author was.
R A Fontes Says: The IRS allows taxpayers to deduct $0.55 per mile as a standard allowance for business use of a private car. Is the extra $0.30 another subsidy to motorists?
JK: The IRS number is taken from the AAA. The AAA number is designed to represent the typical (upscale) AAA member and for instance is based on buying a new car every 5 years for an average car age of 2.5 years while the actual average car age is 9 years, giving a several thousand dollar per year difference in deprecation costs. I have posted the details at: portlandfacts.com/aaa_method.htm
Thanks
JK
Thank you, J K, that makes sense.
So it is a subsidy- – -sort of a reverse cash-for-clunkers where the longer someone holds onto a vehicle, the more money that person could get out of the system. This might not apply to a sales rep or company exec where appearances are critical. But it might work for a newspaper carrier or service tech who just needs to use a reasonably reliable car to get the job done.
The entirity of the mileage deduction is a subsidy for automobile usage; not just the difference between the IRS and JK’s numbers.
To the extent that you can deduct the cost of a transit pass from your taxes, that’s a subsidy for transit.
Which subsidy do you suppose results in a greater loss of funds to the treasuty?
JK:“The IRS number is taken from the AAA.”
ws:I’ve noticed on Google maps they have a cost to drive calculator:
http://maps.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=81106&hl=en
Are you saying your methodology is better than Google’s source? Trick question, nobody knows more than Google.
JK:“Even today the express bus is faster from Gateway to downtown:
Bus=14 min; MAX=26 min.”
ws: It takes more like 28 – 30 from Fisher’s landing to DT Portland (or vis versa) depending on which direction and which time:
http://www.c-tran.com/routes/164route/weekday_south%E2%80%93afternoon.html
See: http://www.portlandfacts.com/maxtimebanfield.html
http://www.c-tran.com/routes/164route/weekday_north%E2%80%93afternoon.html
This comparison is not fair because C-Tran is not making any stops along the way and is not carrying many people — not even close — to what MAX is carrying along the Banfield.
To get a comparison of MAX vs. Bus along the same route, let’s use the Yellow Line (I understand the comparison is about the Banfield, but this elucidates the issue).
Here is a 2 mile comparison for max, bus, and car going (north or south).
7 Min. MAX Yellow
11 Min. Bus MLK #6
5 min. by car
(It was no quicker by any means if the car used I-5 instead of Interstate Ave., according to Google. Same time (5 min) for a car going along MLK, too).
ws Says:
Are you saying your methodology is better than Google’s source? Trick question, nobody knows more than Google.
JK: Take a look at what I wrote. It is the real world cost of actual USA driving based on the AAA method, not a theoretical calculation – look at the AAA publication on their actual method (part of my cost page listed in a previous posting) and my adjustment to reflect the average USA car, instead of the AAA upscale cars. You will see that my cost is a reasonably accurate reflection of the cost of driving for the average American. And that cost can be reduced by choice of car. For instance a friend drives a 17 year old Hyundai that gets 30mpg city and he certainly pays a lot less than the national average because there is little depreciation and fuel cost is 25% less than average, so his cost is likely close to $0.15 per mile.
ws Says:
JK:”Even today the express bus is faster from Gateway to downtown:
Bus=14 min; MAX=26 min.”
ws: It takes more like 28 – 30 from Fisher’s landing to DT Portland (or vis versa) depending on which direction and which time:
JK:Yup, the bus from Fisher’s landing to downtown is the same time (26 min AM commute) as MAX takes from Gateway to downtown, so obviously the bus is faster since the BUS time includes several miles from Fisher’s landing to Gateway. The question is how much. So I subtracted off the time from Fisher’s landing to Parkrose, which is in the area of Gateway and a bit closer. That gave me the 14 min time. We can quibble about his number, but in any case the bus MUST be substantially faster since it went miles further in the same time.
ws Says:
To get a comparison of MAX vs. Bus along the same route, let’s use the Yellow Line (I understand the comparison is about the Banfield, but this elucidates the issue).
JK: Why? The point was about people leaving transit because the discontinued bus was faster. I have shown that the express bus is still faster and from that one can reasonable conclude that some people quit using transit when their trip became longer PLUS having to wait at a transfer point. In the cold. In the rain. This was the original claim.
All this adds credibility to the claim (on the OTI site as well as others) that there was NO NET INCREASE in transit ridership cause by MAX. And from that observation, it logically follows that any increase in ridership since MAX opened may well have occurred on the bus system had it been left intact. Probably the same for Westside MAX.
Thanks
JK
EngineerScotty Says:
Which subsidy do you suppose results in a greater loss of funds to the treasuty?
JK: Transit when you also consider the fact that about 80% of the actual cost is paid by others. It is not merely a tax deduction.
Thanks
JK
JK: Take a look at what I wrote. It is the real world cost of actual USA driving based on the AAA method, not a theoretical calculation – look at the AAA publication on their actual method (part of my cost page listed in a previous posting) and my adjustment to reflect the average USA car, instead of the AAA upscale cars. You will see that my cost is a reasonably accurate reflection of the cost of driving for the average American. And that cost can be reduced by choice of car. For instance a friend drives a 17 year old Hyundai that gets 30mpg city and he certainly pays a lot less than the national average because there is little depreciation and fuel cost is 25% less than average, so his cost is likely close to $0.15 per mile.
I agree with JK that the AAA/IRS cost per mile driven is rather high and is indeed a “least common denominator” methodology. Afterall, we wouldn’t want to short shrift the Lexus and Mercedes owners on their tax write-off.
That said, It is rather rare for a person to keep a car more than 5 or 10 years. They might be driving a 15 year old car, but most likely they bought it 5 or so years ago. Sure, there are exceptions to the rule, but we shouldn’t be making grand declarations/policy decisions based on those exceptions.
It is rather rare for a person to keep a car more than 5 or 10 years.
Actually the average age of a car on the road today is 9 years. That means an awful lot of people are keeping cars well past 9 years to get that 9 year average.
Thanks
JK
JK Says: Actually the average age of a car on the road today is 9 years. That means an awful lot of people are keeping cars well past 9 years to get that 9 year average.
There is a difference between average age of a car and average length of ownership. For example, my car is ten years old, but I am the second owner. First owner had it for 5 years and I have had it for five years.
Using this one car as an example. The average age of the car is 10 years, but the average duration of ownership is 5 years.
OOPS
Sorry,
JK
No worries JK. Interesting, a quick Google search for average length of car ownership didn’t pull anything up. Does anyone have any original source information for this?
JK:“up, the bus from Fisher’s landing to downtown is the same time (26 min AM commute) as MAX takes from Gateway to downtown, so obviously the bus is faster since the BUS time includes several miles from Fisher’s landing to Gateway. The question is how much. So I subtracted off the time from Fisher’s landing to Parkrose, which is in the area of Gateway and a bit closer. That gave me the 14 min time. We can quibble about his number, but in any case the bus MUST be substantially faster since it went miles further in the same time.”
ws:No, because C-tran isn’t picking up anyone along the line. MAX is actually making stops and picking people up.
Let’s compare relevant things. Fisher’s Landing to DT is carrying how many people now?
JK:“Why? The point was about people leaving transit because the discontinued bus was faster. I have shown that the express bus is still faster and from that one can reasonable conclude that some people quit using transit when their trip became longer PLUS having to wait at a transfer point. In the cold. In the rain. This was the original claim.”
ws: You’ve just plugged everyone into an express bus situation. You know, people do live elsewhere besides two different points? You’re not going to have a transit system that takes people to everyone’s destination by express buses alone.
My yellow line comparison holds true, that along a straight line, MAX is not slower than the bus — in fact it’s substantially faster.
Even so, the total average speed of MAX is faster than the total average speed of buses per Tri-Met’s stats.
jk: Sorry, I was not talking of average speed or of stops. I was ONLY talking of the express bus which provided much faster service and was used by many, but not all, people from Gateway to downtown. It was this, possibly quite large group of people east of gateway, that had a longer commute when MAX caused the express bus to be discontinued. I did not address the riders that got on transit closer to town than Gateway (although I suppose some may have gone backwards to gateway to catch the faster express bus.)
I am told that there was a C-Tran express bus that stopped at gateway and was used by many Portlanders instead of MAX due to its being faster, until, I am told, Trimet forced it to quit picking up passengers at Gateway.
Thanks
JK
Sorry, I was not talking of average speed or of stops. I was ONLY talking of the express bus which provided much faster service and was used by many, but not all, people from Gateway to downtown. It was this, possibly quite large group of people east of gateway, that had a longer commute when MAX caused the express bus to be discontinued.
Transit is all about trade-offs. Sure, you can offer special/fast service but it will serve less people. Would it be nice if there was a bus that stopped at my house and my work, yes, but it wouldn’t serve as many people. It is a balancing act between efficiency and equity.
I don’t think there is person on this comment board that thinks WES is anything but a failure, but it does provide that express service to a select few, but what contributes to its failure (I say contribute so this isn’t an extensive list), is the fact that it has very few stops and runs very infrequently. Run more trains with more stops, and the folks using it would have a slower service than they did before, but more people would likely use it.
Yin meet Yang
“ws: You’ve just plugged everyone into an express bus situation. You know, people do live elsewhere besides two different points? You’re not going to have a transit system that takes people to everyone’s destination by express buses alone.”
…. With BRT, one can offer ‘tailored’ service, i.e., a combination of local, limited-stop and express buses. Try doing that with the all-stop, inflexible MAX. Bus/BRT MUCH better for Portland’s density and corridors.
“My yellow line comparison holds true, that along a straight line, MAX is not slower than the bus — in fact it’s substantially faster.”
>>>> MAX is NOT substantially faster than the bus was on Interstate. Remember, the #5 was a LOCAL bus. All MAX did was cause a loss of stops (=service), and additional, trip-lengthening transfers.
“Even so, the total average speed of MAX is faster than the total average speed of buses per Tri-Met’s stats.”
>>>> Not much faster–certainly not enough to justify spending all that money for an inflexible system. Remember, the bus stats included a lot of local bus lines with a lot of stops(=service). Limited and express buses on busways or with signal pre-emption would take that ‘advantage’ away from MAX, while providing much better service.
Bus rapid transit is dependent on busways, which have dedicated busways and stations, frequently dictating the purchase of busses with doors on both sides. In fact, every city that has implemented bus rapid transit has done so as a temporary measure to build light rail in stages: BRT is the MAX with a steering wheel.
In a city with an already established light rail system, BRT makes about as much sense as… well, a train with a steering wheel.
BRT does have one advantage that LRT does not–a given bus can act as a rapid transit vehicle for part of its journey (on the busway), and then depart from the busway and serve local destinations as a local bus. This is hard to do with rail–larger trains, even two-car trains like MAX (which are small compared to many LRT systems) don’t really work in mixed traffic.
However, the mixed mode has its own consequences. Local bus services in most places, including Portland, operate on the pay-on-board principle–a necessity when you have thousands of stops. BRT systems, to be rapid, have to use pay-before-you-board systems–having dozens of commuters filing past the driver showing a pass or throwing money in the bucket simply won’t work. To be rapid, dwell time at stops must be FAST.
Use of turnstiles is obviously not going to work with a system that “goes local”, a so proof-of-payment is required–and that can get expensive, as well as inconvenient for infrequent passengers.
There are ways to solve this problem, and such systems have been implemented successfully; but often times in requires making the BRT system different from the purely local system.
Why not neighborhood buses in the outer areas that use the free way for their journey to town?
The money saved by not building MAX could have been used to provide more freeway capacity than MAX ever will.
Remember the highest capacity single lane right of way carries 30,000 people/hr. It is a road with buses.
Thanks
JK
JK–do you really propose building a bus-only freeway? Or restriping an auto lane on the Sunset for exclusive bus use? Never mind that the Lincoln Tunnel busway is a rather unique case; a dedicated busway has cost that is similar to LRT.
JK–do you really propose building a bus-only freeway? Or restriping an auto lane on the Sunset for exclusive bus use?
JK: NO. I propose running buses in free flowing general purpose lanes. The general purpose lanes are free flowing because we spend transportation money on roads for everyone instead of MAX for a few % of the people.
Thanks
JK
Even if you built five more of them, general purpose freeway lanes are not going to be free-flowing during rush hour. Above four lanes in each direction, diminishing returns sets in, and adding more lanes makes things worse–by increasing the chances there will be an incident (wreck, stall, etc).
That’s why freeways don’t scale, even if they were free to build.
For a BRT to have any chance, it needs its own ROW. The Lincoln Tunnel busway, which you cite as an example of the most efficient lane use, does not allow cars. And as a transit corridor, its pretty short, on both sides of the Hudson it branches pretty quickly.
Please don’t be arguing for a Lincon Tunnel-style bus lane here. Because, while it may serve a huge number of people on back-to-back buses, downtown Portland is in no way the size of Manhattan and has no Port Authority Bus Terminal equivalent.
In other words, yes, MAX may have a lower capacity, but Portland does not need that much capacity (and the capacity of MAX could be increased by eliminating the delays due to traffic signal cycles and other issues downtown as well as allowing longer trains). And where would the buses go once they get downtown and what about the pollution they would add to it? The portion of the line along the Banfield (and the Sunset) has plenty of room for more trains as shown by the addition of the Green Line.
Also, free-flowing freeways would discourage transit use, unless you made them free-flowing by actually charging the true cost of building them and using them through tolls and instead used the gas taxes that do fund them for things like oil defense and pollution cleanup which are actually related to the use of gas.
And I believe that Bob has shown that BRT routes that also serve the neighborhoods would be problematic. I believe the issues are that 1) it would lead to a ton of vehicles needing to travel to/from downtown (instead of transferring their passengers at the busway or freeway station) and 2) it would take more operators to serve the same amount of people on the busway/freeway. In addition, MAX is able to serve passengers in both directions while express buses generally run empty the other way and, I believe, does a better job of attracting those reverse commuters.
I did show that with a brief back-of-napkin analysis, and I’m willing to be proven wrong about it.
However, there’s another problem with JK’s proposal. It follows the same transit pattern which many critics (including JK, as I recall) criticize TriMet about (accurately or not): Downtown-Centric route planning.
A bus which serves neighborhoods around Gateway and then converts to express and zips down the freeway into downtown may serve some people well, but it eliminates a lot of possible and desirable trips.
There are plenty of people who take MAX from Hollywood to 122nd, or from 82nd to Parkrose, for example. There are an increasing number of people, thanks to the Green Line, who work and shop in Gateway and live in Clackamas. Whether or not a route operates in express-mode to downtown is irrelevant to these riders. What is relevant is that they have a place to board and ride medium-speed high-quality transit.
Let’s face it, along I-84, MAX operates just fine as far as speeds go. It’s between 7th and downtown, and beyond Gateway, where it operates at relatively slower speeds.
What we have along I-84 now is very similar to a frequent-service limited-stop trunk line which then splits to serve various neighborhoods: All of Rose Quarter to Gateway is served by the Blue, Red, and now Green lines, and then they split at Gateway to serve East, North, and South, respectively.
This is the same thing that a dedicated busway would do along I-84, except that the vehicles are much larger and serve more people.
The stops at Lloyd Center, Hollywood, 60th, and 82nd (which JK’s proposed express would not serve) are not the bottleneck or the reason for slowness — it’s the close-in stops.
And I and others have proposed consolidating a few stops for time savings. Find the political will to do that, and you’ve just made MAX even more time-competitive without spending much money at all.
Find the political will to do that, and you’ve just made MAX even more time-competitive without spending much money at all.
I remember reading once, years ago, that building a surface MAX platform was a hundred thousand dollar project. Decommissioning a stop probably could be done for a few thousand dollars. Tri-Met could spend maybe twenty or thirty thousand dollars to trim perhaps five or six minutes off travel time on the Red and Blue lines, simply by closing a half dozen MAX stations between Hollywood and Washington Park.
[Moderator: Expletive-laden and overtly-personal comment removed. Paul, please re-state the argument without getting into a tiff with JK. Thanks.]
I and others have proposed consolidating a few stops for time savings. Find the political will to do that, and you’ve just made MAX even more time-competitive without spending much money at all.
And they are unfortunately not doing that. In fact, they are adding stops… the Civic Drive stop in Gresham is supposed to be built out and opened sometime next year.
I don’t think the Civic Drive stop will be a problem… it’s near the end of the line, it’s located central to a popular development, and it’s likely to see usage throughout the day, and on both weekends and weekdays. So it’s a good candidate for a stop.
What I would like to see changed are stops which have consistently low ridership and aren’t far from other, more-popular stops, or stops which, even if moderately popular, are less than 200′ another stop which can handle the capacity.
This topic comes up often enough that I should expand upon it in a dedicated post, but the summary of my suggestions goes like this:
EASTSIDE:
1. Move the “7th Ave.” station to the west, just touching MLK. This will become the new transfer stop for the #6 bus, and midway between the future streetcar running on MLK and 7th. You can still call it 7th so as not to confuse maps/directions.
2. Eliminate what we now know as the “Convention Center” station *but* rename “Rose Quarter” to “Rose Quarter / Convention Center”. The Rose Quarter platform is nearly the same distance from the northern ticket window of the convention center as is the current stop. Build a nice glass canopy, similar to what there is now, to guide patrons to the light rail stop and shield them from rain. Because we moved the 7th stop, this does not cause a net-inconvenience transfers to/from the #6.
DOWNTOWN:
3. Now that the Green and Yellow lines provide good service to the northern end of Old Town, we can consolidate Old Town / Chinatown and Skidmore Fountain into one stop extending from Couch to just south of the Burnside Bridge. This may be expensive, as it will require tweaking the sidewalk height and/or a grade change.
4. [Debate amongst yourselves whether we can consolidate 3rd/5th/Pioneer Courthouse Square — these are all heavily used and provide transfer opportunities to/from the mall, but they are all just 250ft from each other.]
WESTSIDE
5. Eliminate the Salmon St. stop. It’s only about 100ft from the PGE Park platforms. Goose Hollow and/or PGE Park can serve people who live up on the hill just as well.
So there you have it — elimination of at least 3 stops through consolidation while minimizing inconvenience to users in those areas because we’ve done some relocating, too.
Moderator: Thanks for making me the bad guy by making it sound like it was a personal comment when it wasn’t. Consider reading for comprehension in the future, and not libelling people when you censor them.
[Moderator’s Reply: If you don’t want your comments censored, don’t refer to other commenters by comparing them to five-year-olds and don’t drop an F-bomb in any context. I comprehended your comment just fine, thanks.]
[Moderator: Further argument about earlier moderator action removed. This matter is closed.]
Re: Civic Drive. The station’s been there since the eastside line was upgraded to double-track mainline years and years ago. Why it wasn’t opened in the 1990s when the station was built and was instead left to sit without any street furniture (despite the fact trains still have to stop there to trip the railroad crossing going eastbound) is really dumb. They could have installed the fixtures and opened it to the public; surely it’ll get more business than Flavel Street.
Speaking of Flavel Street (and a lot of the other Green Line stations): What were they thinking having the platforms exit to a MAJOR greenway where cyclists are known to operate at high speeds without any sort of pedestrian facilities? “Let’s make riders stand in the middle of traffic to buy a ticket, then walk a block down a narrow right of way with no pedestrian facilities to get to the platform!”
Move the “7th Ave.” station to the west
Not sure if the Capital Projects people would want to make it harder for themselves.
Eliminate the Salmon St. stop.
Would the powerful Goose Hollow neighborhood go along with that? My understanding is that it was include the station or they would put their clout against the project. But if they did and moved the tracks closer together, they could return some parking to the street which is now taking up valuable real estate and requires development of it to include public parking (remember the Allegro?)
despite the fact trains still have to stop there to trip the railroad crossing going eastbound
Has that been true since the station base was put in since the 90’s? But the thing is that there really wasn’t anything there. Regarding Flavel Street, it’s the connection to the 19 and about the closest stop to the Springwater Corridor. In addition, there is a surrounding neighborhood.
Also, how about moving the stops between 9th/10th west, since they didn’t build the ones between, I think, 13th/14th.
BTW, this is actually all on topic, since a re-conceptualized CRC could include improving the MAX system to attract people going over the river and through the central city.
Re: Civic Drive: Yes, it has been the case since it was built.
I’m not criticising Flavel Street Station’s existance, just it’s rather stupid layout, since pedestrians are unprotected on a busy, high-speed, high-volume bicycle route. You’d think they’d have cracked the MUTCD open to understand how to put in the proper treatment (at least a sidewalk next to the cycleway). Then again, the entire Springwater Corridor could also use a proper pedestrian treatment, the SC is also high volume, high speed, and pedestrians are a danger to both themselves and cyclists on the Springwater Corridor: It’s a good 15 years overdue to have sidewalks installed.
As far as closing stations…why not Sunset, Beaverton TC, The Round, Beaverton Creek, Merlo Road and Elmonica? Honestly, who in their right mind lives in or wants to go to Beaverton? Make it faster and easier to get between cities worth actually stopping at.
People who live or work in Beaverton, maybe? (Such as myself?) In case you haven’t notice, Westside trains are full, often in both directions.
If your comment intended to make a salient point about transportation planning, it went completely over my head. Instead, it sounded like a Upper East Side resident suggesting they close the Lincoln Tunnel because he wants nothing to do with Jersey or the unsophisticated yokels who he thinks live there, and who only tolerates the other four boroughs because he has to.
I ain’t the moderator in this forum, but you might consider toning the attitude down a notch. If you want a place where you can engage in gratuitous suburb-bashing, this blog is not it.
Jason McHuff : Also, free-flowing freeways would discourage transit use, …
JK: Discouraging welfare transit is a good thing, not a bad thing. Besides, we can save energy by encouraging smaller cars instead of transit. And driving is cheaper.
Jason McHuff : …unless you made them free-flowing by actually charging the true cost of building them and using them through tolls….
JK: Why don’t we start by charging the actual cost of the $2 bus ticket: $10
Jason McHuff : and instead used the gas taxes that do fund them for things like oil defense and pollution cleanup which are actually related to the use of gas.
JK: Buses use oil too. Actually a bit more than small cars, so if we just absolutely have to get into social engineering, it would be more productive to get people into smaller cars. Buses also pollute more than if all passengers in a full bus were in SUVs:
http://www.seattleweekly.com/diversions/0322/diversions-bus.php
Jason McHuff : I believe the issues are that 1) it would lead to a ton of vehicles needing to travel to/from downtown (instead of transferring their passengers at the busway or freeway station)
JK: But it would save people time & thus further your goal of increasing ridership. It would probably cut the time from 122nd and further out in half. And since we have mostly given over two downtown streets to transit, thy could probably handle all of that, especially if the buses did not have to weave around MAX.
Jason McHuff : and 2) it would take more operators to serve the same amount of people on the busway/freeway.
JK: If we really want to save money, we would shut down MAX because it costs more to operate than a bus. See portlandfacts.com/transit/cost-cars-transit%282005%29b.htm
thanks
JK
Honestly, who in their right mind lives in or wants to go to Beaverton?
Wow, previous threads you’ve found countless ways to (without any factual backing) insult all of California, and now you’re targeting Beaverton? Being so abrasive isn’t a good way to get people to listen to your ideas.
The stops at Lloyd Center, Hollywood, 60th, and 82nd (which JK’s proposed express would not serve) are not the bottleneck or the reason for slowness — it’s the close-in stops.
That is a characteristic of an express — it skips lots of close in stops to provide faster service from outer areas. You serve the skipped stops with another bus.
Thanks
JK
Re: Beaverton…I lived there for 7 years, I still can’t justify it’s existence. Perhaps if Beaverton had a functional city government and a police service that would as vigorously investigate a murder as they do someone doing 31 in a 30 zone, I might have a higher opinion of Beaverton.
Instead, my mother has a 31 in a 30 zone photo ticket on her driving record, and a 1998 murder at 142nd and Allen went uninvestigated after multiple calls to the police by myself and several neighbors (given this fact, the killer is presumably still at large assuming they didn’t run afoul of the law in a jurisdiction that actually cares about the basic safety of it’s constituents, such as anywhere else in the civilized world. I’m not convinced there’s any Oregonians left in Beaverton at this point; it’s like Compton moved to the Tualatin Valley. Even MLK is a safer part of the metro region these days!).
I’m not bashing Beaverton. I’m providing an educated account of what Beaverton is like if you choose to ignore KPTV and it’s “Beaverton is perfect” message.
Re: PortlandFacts.com: [citation needed]. Jim, you can’t cite yourself as a source for a fact.
That is a characteristic of an express
Yes, JK, I think everyone here (certainly by now) knows the characteristics of an express bus.
You’re sidestepping the argument however, and you haven’t demonstrated how a network of express buses serving major destinations point-to-point would be better or cheaper than MAX, which is a compromise between stop-distance and speed, and seems to work well for many more people than did the previous (limited in scope) express services.
If you can’t afford to have express buses everywhere, and just use them to connect very major destinations, people have to get to those express buses somehow, and that means a network of (*gasp*) feeder buses.
Paul Johnson Says: Re: PortlandFacts.com: [citation needed]. Jim, you can’t cite yourself as a source for a fact.
JK: Why not? Or are you assuming I am arguing from authority(like to many do), instead of providing a link to a more detailed information source THAT HAS FURTHER LINKS TO ORIGINAL SOURCES?
Just follow my links to the whole story. ( It keeps the clutter on this site down)
Thanks
JK
Bob R. Says: You’re sidestepping the argument
JK: Sorry, the original argument was that the Gateway to downtown express was faster than MAX that replaced it. That is still correct. Further one can infer from that, that the claims of loss of rider ship due to MAX have the ring of truth.
Bob R. Says: however, and you haven’t demonstrated how a network of express buses serving major destinations point-to-point would be better or cheaper than MAX,
JK: Why is that my duty – that was not my claim. Only that the express bus was faster than MAX from Gateway to downtown & that infers a loss or ridership.
As to the side issues of feeder buses for the express: red herrings. The express existed and appears to have been faster than MAX.
Thanks
JK
Regarding Beaverton–the current city government seems to be an improvement, after voters threw Rob Drake out of office. Mayor Doyle is far less heavy-handed in his public dealings. I won’t argue that Beaverton cops overzealously focus on traffic violations–though they don’t seem to be writing tickets for 1 mile over anymore, at least that I can discern. I lived in the Hyland neighborhood back in 1998, and have no recollection of the case you cite–murders are relatively rare here, and when they do occur they usually make the news.
At any rate, your poor personal experiences with the city government (which have been corroborated by others, including, apparently the Oregon State Legislature, which saw fit to put a stop to Beaverton’s annexation spree a few years back) aren’t much of a reason to deny transit to its residents.
I’m not sure why Beaverton needs transit; sure, it’s residents do, but they can move: The City itself can starve. Not sure they need water, sewer or electricity for the same reason. The murder in the fall of 98 was huge news, though because the police never got involved, the victim wasn’t ever identified and no investigation was opened.
I thought the annexation moratorium was from this session for the next few years. Personally I think it should be retroactive to 1990 (ie, everything Beaverton annexed since 1990 is not Beaverton).
I’m not sure why Beaverton needs transit; sure, it’s residents do, but they can move
Your feelings toward Beaverton and its residents have been duly noted. But this kind of complaint-fest is not useful — “you could move” is not a counter-argument to someone (or someplace) you disagree with.
I moved, it’s not impossible to do even if you don’t own a car. You’re welcome to propose something else, but I’m sure that’s even less productive given that 1) Beaverton’s city government is highly conservative, and it’s population tending to be lower to middle class, which means that 2) The city is gauranteed to go against it’s constituent’s best interest every time.
Good luck with that.
JK:Sorry, the original argument was that the Gateway to downtown express was faster than MAX that replaced it. That is still correct. Further one can infer from that, that the claims of loss of rider ship due to MAX have the ring of truth.
ws:You are using false calculations to determine actual times.
1) Parkrose station is more than just a “little closer” than Gateway transit center. It’s more like 2.2 miles.
It takes 10 minutes for Fisher’s landing to Parkrose, and you added on two minutes to assume the gateway distance which is based on very optimal conditions of 55 mph for a bus.
2) You assumed that travel times (speed) along 205 are going to be the same on 84 at all hours of the day. All you did was subtract 12 minutes from the total 26 minutes of Fisher’s landing to downtown.
Even travel times along the same stretch of road can vary greatly.
3) You took the lowest time of the express Fisher’s landing DT Portland connection of 26 minutes. I don’t know if you’re aware, but roads go in two directions.
I’ll inform people that afternoon downtown to Fisher’s landing time is more like 34 minutes — a difference of 8 minutes from from the minimum of 26 minutes JK was using.
Realistically, an express bus Gateway to downtown Portland is going to average ~16-20 minutes. That is my SWAG, at least.
PS: Cliams of loss of ridership? How so? Who’s claiming this?
Speaking of express service, couldn’t MAX operate on an express like service, bypassing certain stops at certain times of the day? I.E. Gateway to Downtown stop, or Beaverton TC to downtown?
Or is there some regulation stating rail can’t do that for some unknown safety risk?
ws Says: Speaking of express service, couldn’t MAX operate on an express like service, bypassing certain stops at certain times of the day? I.E. Gateway to Downtown stop, or Beaverton TC to downtown?
JK: Look at the schedules and calculate the time savings of the various options.
Do the same for Vancouver to Portland which is currently 15 min for the bus and 30 min for MAX (add 3.6 min to get to Vancouver for a $BILLION)
Thanks
JK
Your continued advocacy for downtown-centric transit services surprises me, JK, given your frequent past criticism (accurate or otherwise) of TriMet and “planners” in general for being too downtown-centric.
Once again you’re comparing two completely different services. Those express buses don’t serve most of the stops which the Yellow Line serves. That’s part of the reason the Yellow Line has high ridership — it serves an entire corridor.
I have no problem if regional transit agencies wish to explore express services. The Seattle region does a lot with expresses.
But express buses generally will only serve a limited set of riders during peak hours. To serve the bulk of transit riders, corridor service with limited stops (a.k.a. MAX outside of downtown) is a better way to go.
If MAX is extended to Vancouver, it will serve not just downtown riders, but those seeking to go to points in N. Portland (the bus/MAX transfer facility at Lombard is very busy), a major medical facility, points in the inner NE industrial area, the Rose Quarter, etc.
We can actually have both types of services if we so choose. Express routes actually draw more riders when a non-express alternative is available throughout the day — riders don’t have to worry if they miss the last evening express, or if they have to run errands in the corridor in the afternoon, etc.
I think that JK is being given too much credit here, Bob–my guess is that wants whatever transit is cheapest to build and operate, and would prefer none at all.
TriMet formerly did operate express trains to add additional capacity. These trains operated only on an unscheduled basis. On the west side, these trains made all downtown stops, Washington Park, skipped Sunset and Beaverton TC, stopped at Beaverton Central and Millikan Way, skipped Beaverton Creek and Merlo Road, and then would terminate at Elmonica to turn back eastbound or turn into a regular Hillsboro train. These trains were identified by a green “Elmonica Express” or a red “Hillsboro Limited” sign depending on whether they were going to turn around at Elmonica or return to regular service. I *loved* these trains when I worked at the Zoo and commuted to Cedar Hills with a bike, since Elmonica and Willow Creek both let me out at the same elevation as home and had far fewer stoplights and intersections favoriting motorists, so I wouldn’t have to do any hillclimbing that I would have to do with the stations farther east. Express and Limited trains would commonly pass local service trains at three-track stations, with the local making a slightly longer stop to allow the express/limited to pass, though on one occasion whlie waiting at Merlo, a westbound express destined for Elmonica passed the local on the eastbound track at Merlo. I’d usually see about one limited or express train per month, and usually I’d be lucky enough to catch it leaving work at Washington Park.
I never saw any of these trains running eastbound, but I did occasionally see Gateway Express and Gresham Limited signs scroll past on the destination boards when trains changed direction, so I strongly suspect the eastside also saw Limited and Express trains breifly in the late 1990s, though I have no idea of any of the details for those routes.
Bob R. Says: Your continued advocacy for downtown-centric transit services surprises me, JK, given your frequent past criticism (accurate or otherwise) of TriMet and “planners” in general for being too downtown-centric.
JK: What advocacy? I was pointing out that Vancouver commuters will have their posted commute time more than double when (not if, I suspect) the express bus is discontinued to force riders to MAX. ws brought up the concept of an express MAX, so I suggested he took at it.
Thanks
JK
Would you be more accepting of the Yellow Line if it was built along the freeway instead? There’s some other arguments for it, besides higher top speed.
Jason McHuff Says: Would you be more accepting of the Yellow Line if it was built along the freeway instead? There’s some other arguments for it, besides higher top speed.
JK: My point is that extending the current light rail to Vancouver has no useful transportation purpose since it will be slower than the current bus (as well as having only 1650 current transit users.). So we negate the need for bridge tolls and save a Billion or so dollars.
Thanks all. I don’t see how it would be useful to go off chasing various straw men and red herrings.
Thanks
JK
slower than the current bus
But my point is that if the Yellow Line were along the freeway, it would be less slower than the current bus. Moreover, having it go across the river should make it faster than the current transit combinations for those unable to take the express ones because they are going to/from North or Northeast Portland, are traveling when the buses don’t run (or aren’t frequent) or don’t want to pay extra for them.
only 1650 current transit users
“Users” is not the standard metric used and assumes that everybody goes back the same way they came, and the line would be expected to serve not just the people who ride transit now, well before it’s even open.