In the previous post, we noted that Metro had approved study for the Powell/Division corridor. A Metro planner indicated that the region in the future would be pursuing a less capital intensive strategy in the future, and hinted that the Southwest Corridor might just not be light rail.
The Southwest Corridor stretches roughly from downtown Portland, along OR99W, southwest to Sherwood. (Map courtesy of Metro).
Major destinations and communities along the corridor include PSU at the north end, the South Portland neighborhood, OHSU/Marquam Hill, Hillsdale, Multnomah, Capitol Heights, PCC-Sylvania, all of Tigard, Garden Home, Progress/Washington Square, some parts of S. Beaverton, Lake Grove, Durham/Bridgeport, Bull Mountain, King City, a small part of Tualatin, and Sherwood.
The corridor was identified as a high-priority corridor in Metro’s 2008 High-Capacity Transit System Plan. The cities of Portland, Tigard, and Sherwood are active participants in the project, and Portland and Tigard have significant planning activities ongoing concerning 99W; Sherwood will be starting a town center plan soon.
Metro has emphasized that the transit mode for the corridor has not been determined: The project website states “Light rail may be included as a potential solution at that time, but other high capacity solutions, such bus rapid transit, commuter rail or rapid streetcar, or even improved local bus, may also be pursued as well or instead.” That declaration has not prevented many observers (including myself) from believing that light rail is the most likely choice, so the suggestion that BRT is a likely possibility was interesting indeed.
After the jump, we take a look at whether or not BRT, of some form, would work in this corridor. We will not consider rapid streetcar or commuter rail any further.
What would a Southwest BRT look like?
The following is, obviously, rampant speculation and geekery on the part of yours truly. A major assumption with a BRT implementation of the Southwest Corridor is that it would be a surface route, using existing rights of way, with capital spending at a minimum. More exotic solutions such as a subway tunnel under Marquam Hill and Hillsdale are considered out of scope–both due to the cost and the issue of ventilation if internal-combustion-powered vehicles are used. Some limited capital enhancements, beyond preparing the right-of-way and building stations, are considered within scope; but a busway solution to the Southwest Corridor is not likely to look like Milwaukie MAX with tires. I do assume, in a few cases, that planned urban projects along the busway are done (and that these aren’t part of the project budget itself). This proposal ignores the question of project phasing.
Click on the image for a larger version.
A hypothetical design corridor would start at PSU and the south end of the transit mall. Rather than proceeding south on Barbur, it proceeds east on Lincoln along the transitway being constructed for PMLR along Lincoln Street, serving the Lincoln Street stop near Naito Parkway. It then will proceeds south on Naito (which will have a busway constructed in the middle–I’m assuming that some of the recommendations of the South Portland Circulation Study Report and Recommendations are done), with stops near SW Arthur/SW Kelly, and Whitaker/Curry. The busway then connects with Barbur, and proceeds in the median of Barbur until further notice.
Another stop would be at Bancroft/Hamilton. After this stretch, it enters the “woods” segment. There might be a local-service stop near the 4900 block of Barbur (there’s no named cross street here, but a big apartment complex), and another near the interchange with SW Capitol Highway. One thing the South Portland Circulation Study recommends is an interchange between Capitol Highway and I-5, so auto traffic coming from Raleigh Hills and/or Hillsdale can use the freeway, allowing further de-highway-fication of Barbur Boulevard. If a Capitol Highway stop could also be connected to the Marquam Trail (crossing under the highway), so much the better.
Stop density would increase a bit in the Burlingame area, with a stop just northeast of SW Third, another at Terwilliger/Bertha, and 13th and Custer. Stop density would then decrease somewhat compared to S. Portland or Burlingame (every 600-800m or so), perhaps at 19th and Capitol Hill, 26th Way, Alice/35th, and the Barbur TC. Beyond that, SW Huber and SW 53rd/Pomona.
After that, the line would cross into Tigard, and Barbur Boulevard becomes Pacific Highway. While the city of Tigard has plans to tame OR99W through its limits, such plans may be subject to pushback from ODOT, as well as from established property owners and an electorate less sold on density and upzoning. I’m going to assume stops at 64th, 71st/72nd, Dartmouth, Hall, and then Tigard TC. Beyond that, Main/Johnson, Park St., McDonald/Gaarde, Bull Mountain/Beef Bend, Durham Road/King City, and Fischer Road.
After leaving Tigard and crossing the Tualatin, OR99W ceases all resemblance of an urban thoroughfare and becomes a high-speed expressway. While grade-separation of the line isn’t necessary; pedestrian overcrossings are probably a useful thing to have in this stretch. A station could be supported at Tualatin Road/124th and possibly at Cipole Road, then nothing until Six Corners is reached. The current 12/94 takes a rather winding route through Sherwood; while the city of Sherwood is mostly single-family housing, I can think of several places where transit service would be useful. As Sherwood is the “end of the line”, I’m assuming minimal capital improvements here.
For most of the line–certainly until one gets past the Tualatin River, my assumption is a median busway within 99W for most of the length, with a few deviations at places like Tigard TC. In some places, this may difficult to accomplish, but one advantage of BRT is that it can mix with regular traffic if needed for a tight spot. I’m also assuming robust signal priority along the route; the bus should only rarely have to wait for crossings or be blocked by traffic. I’m assuming platforms designed for 67′ busses (in addition to better capacity, longer busses speed dwell times by having more doors), and proof of payment used on busses that serve the BRT corridor, including those that branch off, and that stations will have amenities and facilities similar to light rail.
One obvious issue: By running on Barbur (and Naito), the line as indicated doesn’t serve OHSU/Marquam Hill directly. Given its location, OHSU is awfully hard to serve with transit. The current streets up to and around Marquam Hill aren’t suitable for a rapid transit line. Some possible options to reach OHSU include tunneling (which would favor light rail over combustion-powered busses), a new surface route (on a gentler grade) up to the top of the hill, or some way for transit users (as well as pedestrians and bicyclists) to reach the campus from Barbur Boulevard. Although a subway tunnel is likely out of scope for BRT, my assumption is that OHSU is an important enough destination that a reasonable connection to the line and the hospital complex is made–either a pedestrian tunnel to a bank of elevators (passenger throughput will be a big problem, as said elevators may be a bottleneck at shift changes), or a bank of escalators up the side of the hill (similar to the Central-Mid Levels Escalator in Hong Kong). Or a funicular, or some other technology. In the above map, a connection from the Whitaker/Curry stop is assumed, and shown in yellow.
Technical analysis of BRT
In this comment, I list several technical advantages that BRT has in some situations. One additional one, relevant to this discussion, is that it’s far easier to support passing (and thus things like express services). Supporting this with rail is far more difficult–you need to add switches, reconfigure the signalling, etc–but for busses running on pavement, providing passing opportunities is easy. This is important. You’ll notice that over the 11 mile stretch between PSU and King City (we’ll ignore everything past there), there are about 26 stops/stations called out; one about every 700m–and depending on development patterns, I could see calls for more. This stopping distance is far closer than needed for rapid transit–the Yellow Line, for instance, also travels in a street median and has 3000′ (1km) stopping distance on average, and still regarded as kind of slow. I’m assuming that since this is BRT and not rail, there will be opportunities for busses to pass, and thus many of the busses running the busway will have limited stopping patterns. (Were this to be a LRT line rather than a BRT, I’d suggest fewer stops). On the above map, the stops indicated in blue are assumed to be called on by all stations, those in red may be skipped by rapid services.
Now take a look at this map of the current TriMet services in the area.
If one looks at the map of existing bus services in the area, one thing stands out: There’s a whole lot of bus lines heading south from downtown, on one of five corridors: Terwilliger, Barbur/Naito, Corbett, I-5, or Macadam. Other than those bus lines heading down Macadam, most of them branch out and head west to varying degrees in the vicinity of Hillsdale/Burlingame; but in between there and downtown, you have some intense bus activity. Many of these lines run limited service through this area. This sort of branching configuration is something BRT supports well, particularly through “open BRT”, and is something that rail has a harder time supporting–rail works best with linear corridors, not trunk-and-branch. Geography prevents construction of an effective grid in southwest; one doesn’t encounter a significant crosstown bus line until one reaches Tigard and the 76/78. Many of the major trip generators (such OHSU, PCC, Washington Square) don’t lie in a line; serving all of these with a single rail line would be difficult. Note that BRT-like improvements outside the Barbur corridor aren’t discussed, but a BRT line along Beaverton/Hillsdale out to Beaverton TC (and then along TV Highway to Hillsboro) would be a fine idea, as would BRT improvements down Capitol to PCC, then to Kerr and along Boones Ferry to Bridgeport and Tualatin. (I’d love to see the 44 extended to Tualatin–far southwest really could use an all-day direct line to downtown).
There are a few flies in the BRT ointment, however. One is that ideally for an open BRT, you’d have intense development and high density along the trunk; so many people would be able to take advantage of the very-frequent transit service. Most of the “trunk” of Barbur Boulevard, however, is built along the side of a cliff–the terrain prevents any significant development. While this permits fast service through the area, it’s unlikely that significant new development along Barbur would be able to take advantage of this. One exception is the stretch along Naito Parkway that the city hopes to rebuild one day, as the parkway is turned from its highway past to a tame urban street; there are ample development opportunities here.
Another potential issue is that while the current transit topology is tree-like, travel patterns might not be. OHSU, in particular, draws many people from the south and west; several express bus lines serve Pill Hill. Improving transit connections to OHSU is an important issue.
Finally, one downside of open BRT is that it limits vehicle choice–in general, the busses that operate on the BRT section are limited to standard rolling stock–in particular, things like center-platform boarding (requiring doors on the left) are off limits. This can be mitigated by having some bus routes run limited service, skipping some stations–the skipped stations can be configured for left-side boarding.
Political analysis
A longstanding rule of project development (in both the public and private sectors) is “if the politics doesn’t fly, the project won’t either”. Whether a BRT solution will be acceptable for stakeholders is an interesting question. Several important points to consider when thinking of the politics:
- The South Corridor DEIS, which led to PMLR, concluded that light rail would produce 33% more trips than a busway would.
- A big factor in the choice of light rail over busway for Portland-Milwaukie was objections by the city of Milwaukie. The reasons for this objection I’m not sure enough about, but other metros (LA comes to mind) have had nasty fights between different communities over who gets “better” infrastructure, much as children will squabble over the largest piece of cake. Expect some hurt feelings in Tigard and Sherwood if they “only” get BRT whereas Beaverton, Hillsboro, Gresham, and Milwaukie all got light rail–many politicians seem to view rail as the more prestigious project.
- On the other hand, Tigard already has rail–WES. Given the manner in which Washington County twisted TriMet’s arm on that project, the region might be justified in saying no to light rail.
- The same folks pushing anti-rail politics in Clackamas County have been active in Washington County of late, trying to get anti-rail initiatives on the ballots in Tigard and Sherwood. (And in Tualatin, though the line only nicks a corner of Tualatin, so I’m not sure its contribution matters much). If these measures are similar to the one one the ballot this September in Clackamas County, they only would affect rail, not BRT.
- OTOH, Tigard still seems to be a Democratic-leaning town, and Washington County is still a blue-leaning county, so anti-rail organizers may have less success here than they have been having in Clackamas County.
- Given the present national and economic situation, the region may not be able to count on buckets of cash from Uncle Sam; a low-cost option may be required.
- A good argument can be made that WES and Milwaukie MAX have “poisoned the well” for future rail construction, at least for the time being.
- At least one recent TriMet board appointees, Craig Prosser, is known to be an ardent supporter of MAX on the SW Corridor. While the TriMet board won’t be directly involved in the planning process, were board members to object to BRT it would be a major obstacle.
- One other potential political land mine is OHSU’s involvement with the Portland Aerial Tram, which suffered cost overruns of over 200%. OHSU management was accused of misconduct by public officials, including Portland city councilor Randy Leonard, after it became known that OHSU officials knew of cost overruns early on but didn’t inform city officials, preventing the city from considering the cancellation of the project prior to the expenditure of public funds. Given that, there may be considerable political resistance to any further infrastructure spending seen to be beneficial to OSHU, even though it may be otherwise important to the region.
A plausible political case for BRT can certainly be made, though a BRT project may face opposition that a rail project might not. One key constituency to be concerned with are developers; they seem to still exhibit a definite pro-rail bias, and are less likely to consider BRT-facing properties to be a lucrative opportunity. Developers and their financiers tend to be a conservative (meaning slow-to-change, not politically conservative) lot, and many of them still don’t believe that bus service can be an attractive amenity. To the extent the Southwest Corridor is intended as a transformation project instead of just a transportation project, there may be pushback against bus.
One other issue is environmental goals. Assuming that the region isn’t likely to consider trolleybus (or other types of electric-powered bus), the issue of bus emissions may be important (even if no tunnels are built). One reason busses suffer from a bad rap is that their engines are often noisy and smelly; compared to the electric motors in LRT vehicles which are quiet and emission-free. (On the other hand, there’s no rail squeal with a bus). This doesn’t rule out bus, of course–a bus project that can attract motorists out of cars can still meet environmental goals–but at a certain price point, this too will exert a strong push to a rail based solution.
I suggest that the recent Metro announcement may well be a trial balloon to see if the region is ready to do a BRT project on a major regional corridor. BRT on Powell/Division is probably an easier sell–much of the route is already developed; there’s already a parallel light rail line (and thus no reason for Portland or Gresham officials to get upset), the established bus service does well, and given the existing grid there’s nothing to be saved by eliminating overlapping routes to downtown. But none of these things are true for the SW Corridor.
45 responses to “Southwest Corridor BRT?”
Great analysis Scotty. This will undoubtedly be discussed at great lengths during the Alternatives Analysis process, but I’m sure that the final LPA will end up being light rail.
You’ve covered a lot of the pros and cons here, but like you said, if the politics don’t fly, the project won’t fly. Tigard has been one of the best cities outside of Portland to get their planning s*** together and have made a concerted effort to plan ahead specifically for the arrival of MAX through their city. Denying them light rail in this corridor is going to be a non-starter. I do have doubts whether MAX will reach all the way into Sherwood, but no doubt whatsoever that it will link Tigard to Downtown Portland.
I don’t think most people are confused about the difference between WES and MAX, so having a WES station isn’t going to trump the need for HCT along 99W. If anything, the WES corridor is a good candidate for conversion to MAX service in the future, but that’s another discussion.
Regarding the example of Milwaukie, it was primarily civic pride that pushed LRT back into consideration after the South/North votes temporarily sidelined MAX in that corridor. BRT is still considered by many (especially developers) to be the poor cousin of HCT. Also, despite some very vocal (and ill-informed) light rail bashers in Estacada, Battle Ground and other rural backwaters, MAX is still very popular throughout the metro area.
Good, thoughtful article. A nice example of why I hit this site daily.
I read something somewhere yesterday where it was theorized that some of the recent support (world-wide & nationally, not locally) for BRT is coming from anti-rail groups. It’s not about providing transit, it’s about stopping rail. I wonder if this is true.
To developers and property values, is BRT equivalent to light rail? I suspect not, as Aaron indicates above. Once a rail line is in-place, there is a commitment to transit. BRT, on the other hand, because it requires less of an infrastructure requirement, is much easier to discontinue at some future date. BRT is still “bus”, after all.
As to possible objections to doing anything with OHSU because of the cost overruns on the aerial tram, don’t forget that the VA hospital is also on the Hill. “Do it for the veterans.” If there is to be an escalator or something running up to OHSU/VA, it will have to be capable of easily transporting patients in wheelchairs & other mobility devices. I’m sure that ADA will have a requirement covering this, but for a system like this to be functionally acceptable, it may have to go beyond ADA requirements.
I think my position, if it mattered, would be to push for a light rail line, with a tunnel, with BRT as a fall-back position.
Perhaps some sort of combination is on order. How expensive would it be to terminate the green line beneath OHSU/VA and have BRT/Express buses to points beyond.
I read something somewhere yesterday where it was theorized that some of the recent support (world-wide & nationally, not locally) for BRT is coming from anti-rail groups. It’s not about providing transit, it’s about stopping rail. I wonder if this is true.
Yes, BRT is used sometimws as a stalking horse for anti-transit positions, as a way to dilute support for rail projects.
No, that’s not its only purpose.
A key way to identify instances of this is to ask questions. If someone tries to obscure the differences between different classes of BRT–talking up the TransMilenio as examples of what BRT can do, but only willing to support “enhanced bus”–i.e. unwilling to either take lanes from automobiles or to spend the money to build a busway–they probably aren’t a serious BRT advocate.
Regarding the “commitment” argument. Any time there’s a significant capital investment, there’s more of a commitment; but good BRT also represents a significant capital investment. In the current funding environment, any federally-funded project represent a commitment, as Uncle Sam doesn’t want local governments wasting its money by building projects and the abandoning. (Uncle Sam doesn’t need help with wasting money, thankyouverymuch).
And if you drive around, particularly downtown, there’s plenty of abandoned streetcar tracks lying around from a century ago…
Metro always says that other possibilities will be considered, especially when outcomes are predetermined.
While local pols may be all hot for rail, the situation might be just the opposite in DC. We could very well see the GOP controlling all branches with the Senate minority only able to stop the most egregious bills with filibusters. Even without the partisan considerations, major transit projects might become fewer and fewer as society changes – think communication replacing transportation and AV’s obviating transit except in the most congested situations.
Also, Tigard’s presumed desire for LR might be balanced by the interest from Sherwood, Tualatin, Wilsonville, etc. for fast, frequent, and reliable single-seat service.
Isn’t transit demand at Marquam Hill significant enough that, as expensive as it would be, we really need to do a tunnel?
If this does end up being one of the last major regional transit projects, shouldn’t we get it right?
With the current state of the GOP, it may be hard to get any transit funding were they to come to power. (Say what you like about W, but he at least wasn’t all that interested in waging cultural wars–unfortunately, he did rather enjoy waging the real kind overseas). Long term demographic trends seem to be against the GOP, but a GOP victory in November is a possibility. (At this point, I still consider Obama a favorite to win re-election–nobody really likes Mitt Romney, however a whole bunch of people dislike the president more; that’s not usually a winning strategy against an incumbent).
It’s still quite early in the planning process for the SW Corridor.
There are wo key thing to watch out for.
First, if the project purpose and need statement (not yet written) is overly constrained, it’s a good sign that the project planners want to exclude something from consideration. The CRC is a good example of how a cynically-written P&N statement can “force” a project team to design what they want to design–the CRC P&N excludes many of the sensible alternatives that many people have proposed. The SW Corridor P&N is probably due by the end of the calendar year.
Second, observe whether multiple plausible alternatives (beyond “no build”, “intelligent transportation systems”, and other things often required be present by federal law) are advanced to the DEIS phase. If different quality alternatives are taken to the DEIS phase, that would be a sign that Metro is serious about fairly considering all the options. If, on the other hand, the only options considered in the DEIS are What Planners Really Want and a bunch of pro-forma things (i.e. the “enhanced bus” option for LO/PDX), it’s a good sign of a poorly-run project.
Right now, we’re still very early on SW corridor; but the next year or two of planning should tell us much.
I can get behind LRT if the suburbs are substantially rezoned around the station areas. Without this, there is no reason to do a really expensive tunnel. Might as well just optimize where the density is.
It seems like open BRT would work well here
“It seems like open BRT would work well here.”
>>>> It would work far better than an inflexible LRT line would, because of branching. However, where is the room for a dedicated busway in this corridor?
Nick,
A few assumptions:
* Naito Parkway between Lincoln and Barbur will be reconfigured to no longer be a highway, and only one auto lane in each direction will be needed, leaving plenty of room for BRT.
* Barbur between Naito and Burlingame will have a mixture of dedicated BRT lanes, and possible mixed-traffic running where necessary (there are plenty of viaducts which may be too expensive to widen). If Capitol is connected to the freeway, there’s no reason for Barbur north of Capitol to have five vehicle lanes.
* South of Burlingame, there’s no technical impediment to widening the roadway.
How expensive would it be to terminate the green line beneath OHSU/VA and have BRT/Express buses to points beyond.
It sure wouldn’t be cheap, but Pill Hill certainly merits being served by something higher-capacity than the current infrastructure, and this could be a palatable first step (and if I wanna get into more pipe-dreamish territory, it could tie into a future downtown subway).
If one looks at the map of existing bus services in the area, one thing stands out: There’s a whole lot of bus lines heading south from downtown, on one of five corridors: Terwilliger, Barbur/Naito, Corbett, I-5, or Macadam. Other than those bus lines heading down Macadam, most of them branch out and head west to varying degrees in the vicinity of Hillsdale/Burlingame; but in between there and downtown, you have some intense bus activity. Many of these lines run limited service through this area. This sort of branching configuration is something BRT supports well, particularly through “open BRT”, and is something that rail has a harder time supporting–rail works best with linear corridors, not trunk-and-branch.
This is a great illustration of why the SW Corridor is sort of uncharted territory; this issue generally didn’t come up when past HCT corrdiors were implemented. It’s fine if LRT ends up being the main mode of choice, but buses still need to be part of the mix, and will presumably still run on at least some segments on Barbur. Therefore, unlike Interstate with the implementation of the Yellow Line, lanes probably couldn’t be sacrificed on Barbur. Perhaps a seperate ROW between Barbur and I-5 might work, but it would take out quite a few buildings — including the Original Pancake House :(
I was glad to see Lake Grove included as part of the study; current transit service to this area is subpar at best.
My 2 cents. Having grown up in this area (Tualatin/Tigard), I have a few thoughts, however anecdotal they may be.
First of all, even my dad, who is center/right politically, has bemoaned the lack of light rail to the SW for years. In my experience, this sentiment is almost universal in these areas. I have friends who have never ridden a bus in their life, but would absolutely ride MAX. A MAX line to these areas would be hugely successful with commuters, who otherwise have to suffer through congestion on I5 each day. It would get my dad out of his car (especially with gas prices!). Beyond commutes, the middle class suburbia of SW routinely drives to downtown, parks, and then gets around on MAX. If the line went to SW, they would ride it. For events, for weekend days and nights, I could guarantee a huge amount of ridership from the SW suburban areas.
All of that is to say that a MAX line would be hugely successful, in my opinion, where even a premium BRT line would not. Now, I don’t have a modal bias, I don’t own a car, and I depend on buses far more than MAX. But, as anecdotal as it is, none of my friends who go downtown all the time, none of my friends, or my dad, who commute, would take a bus. A BRT would greatly improve transit for those who already ride buses, and so I would welcome it greatly if it happened–once you get out of closer-in SW, many areas in the corridor aren’t very well served. But I think it would be a major missed opportunity for a MAX line that could be among the most successful in the region in the long run. For better or worse, a BRT line, I think, would have little net increase in transit ridership in the corridor; LRT would give transit ridership a significant bump.
And that leads me to another point, on the political feasibility: this transit corridor would be presented as an alternative to the congestion of I5, and in this region I think it would enjoy backing from tons of commuters who don’t normally ride transit. It could very well enjoy broad support even among people who drive their cars every day, and thus would avoid the kind of cars vs. transit battles that are so often fought–but only, I think, if it were a MAX line.
And finally, I don’t live in Tualatin anymore, so this isn’t just a selfish desire, but I think that going to Sherwood along 99W is a waste, going along several miles of land which is not even in the UGB. I think it would be far more successful paralleling I5 more, and going from Tigard down to Tualatin, perhaps thence to Wilsonville or Sherwood.
TTGannett, great point about mass transit benefiting more than just commuters; with many of the area’s major attractions already served by MAX, it’s proved to be a pretty efficient method of serving large numbers of special-events attendees (if only the ticket machines were more reliable, but that’s a post for another thread…)
I think BRT has a lot of potential. I like it for Powell. I like it for Canyon Road/TV Highway in Beaverton/Hillsboro. But this particular project really needs to be MAX. Its the only feasible way to improve congestion along this corridor.
I wonder if we can’t just get OHSU to stump up some of the needed funds to get a tunnel underneath the hill? Kind of like how TriMet got Bechtel to help pay for the Airport Line, as it was in their own interest since they were building the big-box-zone-from-hell out there. After all, it’s in OHSU’s interest to get better transit access isn’t it? Above and beyond the few buses and the silly-but-fun tram.
Regarding OHSU (and the VA too), I think they are the #1 reasons why a tunnel is inevitable. OHSU has deep pockets and would absolutely pitch in. After all, they paid a huge chunk of the $54 million Aerial Tram. They’d be willing to commit even more for their own subway station.
And everybody loves vets nowadays (if only it had always been that way), so the Feds would be much more agreeable to ponying up some extra $$.
Then there’s Doernbecher’s…. do it for the kids :)
I have to agree about the subway station under OHSU/VA as a necessity. Those institutions *should* be connected to a regional network and served directly. The current map provided doesn’t even have a real connection, just an assumed one. There’s not even a connection to the aerial tram (something that creeps the hell out of me to use). As a transit rider for many years and having no car, there is nothing I hate quite so much as my ride getting me only 90% of the way when just a small tweak (even if it is an expensive one here) would rectify it. I doubt a pedestrian way would be built or lots of expensive elevators or covered escalators. If it were me, I’d just catch the 8 and be dropped off directly. To hell with that convoluted connection down the hill.
Concerning the stop spacing on the Yellow and its slow speed, it’s not so much due to the close stops so much as it is that there are a lot of slow zones on that line. I take it regularly, so I can speak from experience. It’s also prevented on most stretches from getting up to a higher speed. It also has to go slow through the intersections to reach the station, slower than it probably needs to. I won’t even get into the ridiculously slow speed over the Steel Bridge, that roundabout way to get to Union Station, and the unnecessarily long dwell times at stations in Downtown. Combined, that makes for a surprisingly slow rail line. Do you realize that if one starts at the Lombard, and MAX and the 4 bus take off at the same time, they reach the Rose Quarter within a few minutes of each other, especially in the evening? That’s pathetic. To credit the Yellow Line, though, you can almost always find a seat. That’s not so true on the 4 along any of its length.
That brings me to my next point. Based on my experience with MAX (I’ve yet to have a chance to ride a BRT), I’m not sure how I’d feel about either technology on the SW Corridor. Since much of MAX (though not all) is rather slow for a “rapid transit system,” I can’t imagine a much better job being done with buses. The only real improvement would be a highly visible understandable trunk (let’s face it, most people don’t know about the 12 bus).
I’d also like to point out that it’s hard to swallow the idea that the Blue/Red/Green lines are a parallel for the Division/Powell corridor other than in geography only. I live on Belmont, and MAX barely registers down here. I’m pretty sure the people around Division and especially Powell couldn’t possibly give a shit less about MAX as it’s far to north to be of only use to them. I don’t care what mode goes on that corridor. I’ve been riding buses and trains long enough that I’m only interested in what gets me where I’m going fastest (and that can often be the bus).
I have to agree about the subway station under OHSU/VA as a necessity. Those institutions *should* be connected to a regional network and served directly. The current map provided doesn’t even have a real connection, just an assumed one. There’s not even a connection to the aerial tram (something that creeps the hell out of me to use). As a transit rider for many years and having no car, there is nothing I hate quite so much as my ride getting me only 90% of the way when just a small tweak (even if it is an expensive one here) would rectify it. I doubt a pedestrian way would be built or lots of expensive elevators or covered escalators. If it were me, I’d just catch the 8 and be dropped off directly. To hell with that convoluted connection down the hill.
Concerning the stop spacing on the Yellow and its slow speed, it’s not so much due to the close stops so much as it is that there are a lot of slow zones on that line. I take it regularly, so I can speak from experience. It’s also prevented on most stretches from getting up to a higher speed. It also has to go slow through the intersections to reach the station, slower than it probably needs to. I won’t even get into the ridiculously slow speed over the Steel Bridge, that roundabout way to get to Union Station, and the unnecessarily long dwell times at stations in Downtown. Combined, that makes for a surprisingly slow rail line. Do you realize that if one starts at the Lombard, and MAX and the 4 bus take off at the same time, they reach the Rose Quarter within a few minutes of each other, especially in the evening? That’s pathetic. To credit the Yellow Line, though, you can almost always find a seat. That’s not so true on the 4 along any of its length.
That brings me to my next point. Based on my experience with MAX (I’ve yet to have a chance to ride a BRT), I’m not sure how I’d feel about either technology on the SW Corridor. Since much of MAX (though not all) is rather slow for a “rapid transit system,” I can’t imagine a much better job being done with buses. The only real improvement would be a highly visible understandable trunk (let’s face it, most people don’t know about the 12 bus).
I’d also like to point out that it’s hard to swallow the idea that the Blue/Red/Green lines are a parallel for the Division/Powell corridor other than in geography only. I live on Belmont, and MAX barely registers down here. I’m pretty sure the people around Division and especially Powell couldn’t possibly give a shit less about MAX as it’s far to north to be of only use to them. I don’t care what mode goes on that corridor. I’ve been riding buses and trains long enough that I’m only interested in what gets me where I’m going fastest (and that can often be the bus).
Crazy idea: move the green line to the Powell/Division corridor. Or would that break more than it fixes? (I realize that it wouldn’t serve the area east of 205.)
Great discussion. Thanks everyone for tolerating my naive questions & suggestions. I’ve only been in Portland for 2 years, but I’m learning a lot. (I came here from a medium-sized city in Florida with a poorly designed bus system and a bit of bicycling infrastructure.) Mrs Dibbly & I have become huge transit & cycling fans. Last weekend we filled up our car for the first time since last July! :)
I would like to see what a SW corridor would REALLY cost. So far we have had projects that have soared way beyond their original figures. Perhaps this just represents adjustments to inflation—-although I would say that construction wages since the Gresham MAX have increased about 300 percent while the project costs have increased about 1000 percent.
Since we’re talking about giving area residents quick access to Pill Hill does that mean the entire region should have MAX extensions and new lines? And what about OHSU plans on the South Waterfront? They have another tower in the works, apparently.
I think a BRT route all the way to Sherwood would fail because the traffic on 99w would continue to get worse. But, as I’ve suggested elsewhere, express bus from Sherwood and Tualatin using I-5 could work, which would make a connection to Tigard by other means shorter and cheaper.
Because of OSHU/VA, I’m inclined to support light rail on the corridor. I think Tri-Met should look seriously at a tunnel from PSU to PCC, with stations at OHSU, Hillsdale and PCC.
Both Hillsdale and PCC would be major transit centers serving multiple bus lines. A number of buses that currently go downtown via Barbur could instead provide greater coverage of Southwest Portland, with riders transferring to MAX.
South of PCC, the MAX line could surface to serve a gigantic park & ride in the Tigard triangle and terminate at Tigard Transit Center. While the line would have only five stations, it would be fast, and every station would generate a LOT of ridership.
I support BRT where appropriate, but I don’t see it being a good fit for SW given the detour needed to serve major destinations (OHSU and PCC) and the challenges of working with the existing road network.
I agree, BRT would work well in several corridors, but the SW corridor is not one of them. Alternatives analysis should clarify that. BRT would be ideal for Beaverton-Hillsdale/TV Hwys and Powell/Division though. Also Clackamas to Gresham via an emerging Damascus (if Damascus could ever get their s*** together).
BRT will never go anywhere if we limit it to expanding or sucking up lanes on existing ROW.
There are public-use motor vehicle tunnels in Europe and Asia much longer than anything that would be needed to serve Marquam Hill and beyond. A shorter tunnel restricted to a handful of low/zero emission buses even during the peak commute should be relative child’s play to construct and operate.
In addition to the convenience and cost-saving advantage of eliminating transfers that comes with BRT, there’s also the shorter headway that’s possible for vehicles with lower hourly operating costs and faster emergency deceleration rates.
Maybe if BRT were more expensive than LR it might get serious consideration.
SW Corridor BRT
(Full disclosure: I am presently a member of the City of Tigard’s urban renewal commission for the downtown area. My views here represent my own, not the views of any board, commission, or any other official aspect of the city.)
A few thoughts.
Building a light rail line in this corridor has, in every unofficial estimate I have seen or heard, been described as potentially the most expensive MAX line ever. I’ve been getting the number $2b but I don’t know if tha is a WAG or gronded in anything real.
You already cited one reason why: serving OHSU. You missed the other, however: serving the PCC Sylvania campus. In both cases the anticipated preferred method is an extensive tunnel and underground station approach. I am unconvinced that a direct rail line serving these points is a necessity, but both have strong potential ridership and huge political pull.
On OHSU, one wild thought: if it is BRT, or even MAX, why not route via SoWa and serve it via the tram?
You mentioned topography, but I’m not sure your critique of the hilliness of Barbur is entirely right. Yes, it is in the segment from Hamilton to Burlingame, but beyond Burlingame to Breeze Hill (just beyond Capitol Highway and Barbur TC) is a lot of developed and potentially redevelopable land. True these areas don’t have as many overlapping bus lines, however, and so may not benefit as much from an “open” BRT.
I’m not sure how much Sherwood cares nor how much they really matter politically. Tigard however is a big fish politically now, especially with Craig Dirksen now being elevated to Metro. However, the city is not Dem territory: our history is of electing Republicans to most city offices and even count ones. Dirksen is an R, as are most (all?) of our council. Moderate Republicans, but still Republicans. It has been challenging to make a case for more urbanized development in the city. So far the greatest ally to greater urbanization and other so-called liberal land use policies has been demographic turnover. Eastern Washington County is becoming rapidly more diverse (look at Beaverton!) and younger, newer residents seem less adverse to urban improvements.
Still, you are likely right about LRT vs BRT and the reaction here. I have heard other public officials mention to me that “we don’t want more buses” and “it better be rail,” though I haven’t heard it explicitly stated that other places get it so so should we. It is implied though. Whether these views are representative is a different matter.
Part of that aversion to BRT is the huge amount of faith the city (or at least some key leaders of it) have put in increasing density in specific areas adjacent to 99W through using MAX as a development tool.
Don’t get too hooked on a 99W routing. Metro planners have hinted so often about “it’s not necessarily going to be on 99W” and “think about the stations you want to go to not lines” and including Lake Oswego and Tualatin in this process that there are very good odds it may take a less direct route in order to include certain areas. For example, a deviation south could bring in ridership from Kruse Way, Lake Grove/Bridgeport, Tualatin proper, etcetera.
Another idea I have heard floated by Metro planners is “fixing” WES. And so another possible outcome might be a proposal for a relatively inexpensive enhanced bus on 99W and a conversion of WES to the far more cost effective MAX. It would be a helluva lot less than $2b and fix a persistent operational cost problem, but it would mean putting more trains through the Robertson Tunnel. (I would assume it would mean extending the Red Line south from Beaverton, but thats way out there speculation.)
Metro is supposed to have an alternatives analysis out on mode in July the last that I heard, so we should know more in a few months.
Thanks for your input Alexander! I wanted to just focus on what you mentioned about not getting too focused on 99W, and on possible routes to Tualatin. Though this in my mind would pertain to a MAX line and probably not a BRT line… I have thought that a MAX line could go from Tigard transit center, down Hall, cross the river alongside the old Burlington Northern (WES) bridge, and serve Tualatin. That may not be possible… but for much of that stretch of Hall, there is plenty of room, with open land which would seem perfect for infill development.
2 billion is a lot of money–but then again, 1.4 billion for Milwaukie MAX is a lot of money too, and if a SW corridor MAX were built with tunnels serving OHSU and PCC, and serving Tigard and beyond, that would be a good value compared to Milwaukie MAX, relatively.
Don’t forget that a the local Politicians want the biggest project possible because this is how they extract the biggest federal match. So although the streetcar and MLR are expensive per mile, they throw in all sorts of extras like (Streetcar’s case) traffic signals at NE 2nd on Broadway/Weidler for the Rodney bikeway, bioswales all over the central eastside, to name a few things
I’m totally with Alexander. Let’s focus on fixing WES. Turn it into a LRT line and route it by Washington Square. Lots of developable land around the entire line. I would probably run it only until Tualatin. If there is a desire to run it to Wilsonville, I would route it to I-5 from there and have it run down the median of I-5 from Tualatin to Wilsonville.
As for OHSU, it already has access to great transit. With MLT and the streetcar stopping near the tram, it will have plenty of access available. Running some form of BRT down 99 to PCC would cover the gaps. I remember in the 70s, there was a transit only lane going down center of Barbur. We could sort of go back to the future here.
I haven’t read all the way through these comments, but I don’t think anyone’s touched on what should be a major consideration, namely that portable fuels are likely to get vastly much more expensive in the next 5-10 years and if we ever succeed in even trying to get a handle on global climate disruption, then carbon fuel powered vehicles are going to essentially go away. That’s going to include diesel-powered buses. If we build a BRT with no provision for electrified buses, we’re asking for a major problem in the future. Building a light rail line now when we can probably afford it makes a lot more sense than trying to build it in the future or even retrofit a BRT in the economic chaos of a $10.00 per gallon world.
Allen is right. We can’t waste money building things that aren’t electrified. I would venture to say that we need to BOTH make westside MAX serving OHSU AND PCC, and fix WES as a light rail through Tualatin and Wilsonville (and, eventually, through Woodburn and Salem-Keizer). That’s a lot, I know, but here is the reality: the age of the car is ending a lot sooner than people think, if you’re not on an electrified line, its going to be tough to get around, and complete climate choas is going to have people migrating from the SW to the NW in droves.
We’re eventually going to need some kind of electrified passenger line all the way down the valley to Eugene, but that’s not going to happen until people understand the reality we are facing.
Alan/Dave, great point. I wonder why we are assuming that BRT wouldn’t be electrified? If a BRT solution is to be considered, I would think this would have to be on the table.
One more thing on the cost. If the CRC thinks that one interchange (Hayden Island) to serve a dying supermall and a few thousand residents is worth 700 million, then a potential SW corridor MAX for 2 Billion looks like an outright bargain. Ceterum censeo CRC esse delendam!
…the age of the car is ending a lot sooner than people think…
I don’t know if the age of the car is ending anytime soon, but how it’s powered will almost certainly evolve over time. The personal transport vehicle is probably here to stay (and I include bikes in that category), but the internal combustion engine isn’t.
Anyway, here’s a theoretical routing I came up with for SW Corridor:
MAIN (whether BRT or LRT) – Stops include:
* OHSU/VA (underground)
* Hillsdale (underground)
* Burlingame
* Barbur TC
* Tigard Triangle
* Tigard TC
* Durham/Upper Boones Ferry Rd
* Tualatin
BRANCHES (Frequent Bus, Express Bus and/or BRT):
* Burlingame to Washington Square (via Multnomah to Garden Home to Oleson)
* Barbur TC to PCC (via Capitol, can continue to L.O.)
* Barbur TC to Lake Grove (via 1-5 to Kruse Way)
* Tigard to Lake Grove (via Hunziker or Bonita)
* Tigard to Washington Square (via Greenburg)
* Tualatin to Sherwood
How safe is a tunnel and an elevator shaft under a typical Portland hillside? Unlike the ground above the Hwy 26 tunnel which has houses, Marquam Hill has huge buildings on it. Basalt is not inherently stable; there are places around this area where the basalt has crumbled. Look at the Cascade Locks area to see where a whole mountainside has given away. When you consider seismic requirements for a tunnel, perhaps consideration should be given to what is located above it.
Alexander Craghead: The tram has a very limited capacity. As it is now, it fills completely for every run during both the morning and the evening “rush hours”. If you tried to use it to serve the Hill in conjunction with a light rail line, you’d have gigantic waiting times and huge lines.
I agree with Dwainedibbly about the capacity problems with the aerial tram. Let’s not also forget that transfers from Metro are not valid on it unless one has a monthly pass. It’s hours of operation are also limited to the day. I would also point out that there are some people who will absolutely refuse to get on that thing due to acrophobia or discomfort at being suspended like that. Going over the central tower makes a big swing that can unnerve people. For my part, I don’t like riding that thing for those reasons. It creeps me out. I sure as hell wouldn’t use it on a daily basis if I had an alternative. I guess that’s not really a great reason, but I wouldn’t dismiss it either. Frankly, I feel safer in the MAX tunnels going under the West Hills…
How much further could the frequency of the tram be pushed? Is it at the limit already?
I don’t really buy the acrophobia thing. For every person that refuses to ride it I think there are a handful that get on only for the novelty and awesome view. You experience forces much higher in magnitude on busses in busy traffic all the time compared to the little swing thing it does mid-way.
The tram is already operating at or very close to its limits. There’s no way to increase capacity, and I doubt it could run any faster — certainly not enough to make a significantly greater number of trips over the course of a day.
To get high-capacity service, OHSU/VA would need an underground MAX station with multiple high-speed elevators (the best option) or a BRT station on Barbur linked by a high-capacity people-mover of some kind — possibly a funicular railway.
Thanks for all the comments, everybody.
To clarify a point: The proposal described above is not my recommendation for a new line; it’s a thought experiment of how a Portland-Sherwood (or Portland-to-the-Tualatin-River) rapid transit line would look, with a budget of less than $500M. The corridor in question is over twice as long (around 17 miles) as Portland-Milwaukie, if one builds all the way out to Sherwood. For $500M you won’t be able to afford significant ROW acquisitions or major new structures, and you probably wouldn’t be able to afford to rebuild the roadbed on Barbur to LRT standards. The proposal above is possibly doable at that price though–but that’s a back-of-the-envelope calculation.
Some observations from the feedback:
* OHSU connectivity is extremely important (I agree).
* Some disagreement as to what the main purpose of the line ought to be–improving trip times? Improving reliability? Attracting ridership? Improving land use outcomes? Attracting development? Reducing VMT, emissions, etc? These questions need to be decided, obviously, and the current public process is working on precisely that.
A question for Alexander–given that much of the WES corridor is outside of the study area, could a decision to build LRT down the 217/I-5 corridor arise from the current planning process? Or would it spawn a new planning process, being out of scope of the current process?
* Some disagreement as to what the main purpose of the line ought to be–improving trip times? Improving reliability? Attracting ridership? Improving land use outcomes? Attracting development? Reducing VMT, emissions, etc? These questions need to be decided, obviously, and the current public process is working on precisely that.
My $0.02 plus tax: Improving trip times and and reliability should be the combined main purpose, as it would then help fulfill many of the other goals mentioned. A more timely/reliable transit system would attract more riders, which would reduce VMT and emissions as more people leave their cars at home, the areas near the line would be more attractive to developers, etc.
My $0.02 plus tax: Improving trip times and and reliability should be the combined main purpose, as it would then help fulfill many of the other goals mentioned. A more timely/reliable transit system would attract more riders, which would reduce VMT and emissions as more people leave their cars at home, the areas near the line would be more attractive to developers, etc.
Improving reliability is mainly dependent on the nature of the right-of-way (do vehicles have to stop at crossings? can they be stuck behind traffic?) and the stops and stations (how often does the vehicle have to stop? How much time does it take to service a stop?); both of which are mostly independent of the bus/rail question.
OTOH, some of the auxiliary goals may have bigger mode choice dependency, due to the cultural preferences of some (potential) riders–if there is a significant segment of the population that will ride the train but not the bus, and developers are less likely to build next to a bus line, these are things that need to be considered.
But they are auxiliary considerations: For the primary purpose of transit–making it possible for people to get around without needing to bring a vehicle along (particularly a car); they’re irrelevant.
BTW–did you catch Jarrett’s talk last week? :)
Jarrett basically said that you shouldn’t live in the SW corridor (especially deep within subdivisions) if you wanted to survive without a car. He was trying to say that we shouldn’t try to serve the un-servable locations, but recognize that the geometry of some areas is very expensive to serve and so we’ll just do the best we can. He mentioned that transit providers often apologize for these things but really they should just put the blame on the location choices of those who live in auto-dependent areas.
Hmmm…too expensive for light rail (given fiscal situation), too much potential for just a bus. I wonder why electric trolley buses operating as BRT won’t get consideration, as you said at the end of the article? This technology seems the perfect medium – if operated from the extension of the Green Line to OHSU. This gives towns along the route their “identifiable” (electric wire+station) presence around which to develop. At rush hour, express (skip stop) diesel buses could pick up at these same stations and offer direct rides to PSU.
TriMet GM Neil McFarlane has, in the past, expressed skepticism of trolleybusses. Part of this is appears to be a belief (on his part) that electric bus technology will soon get to the point where wire-free electric busses will soon be practical; at which point TriMet would happily embrace the technology.
Trolleybusses use a different wiring scheme than does electric rail. Both the Streetcar and MAX use the same power system; but a trolleybus would need it’s own system, if nothing else, a two-wire system to provide a path for return current. It’s possible to mix the two systems on the same corridor, but not easy to do. (I’m mainly concerned about the transit mall, which has wiring for MAX down the length; and given that MAX travels down the center lane for those blocks where it doesn’t stop and the right lane where it does, the two systems would have to cross each other numerous times).
Scotty:
I don’t know regarding the planning implications of a WES conversion. I would assume it is doable, as the process right now is very preliminary, rather than at a DEIS/NEPA level. Those areas (Beaverton and Wilsonville) *would* have to be in the DEIS level document to be considered.
Most of WES is in the corridor, so that helps that theory. I’ve heard the idea tossed around by Metro staffers at public meetings, but I don’t know how serious they are or how far they are leaning in that direction.
As for Jarrett’s comments on locations and serving the SW Corridor, I think that’s really really short sighted if that is indeed his perspective:
• Transforming communities is an essential value of how we approach land use and urban growth in the Portland metro area, so using transit to urbanize areas is a central philosophical aspect of transit here.
• While geography and land use will always constrain service levels, there are equity issues. The Southwest Corridor is becoming significantly less white and less upper middle class. The idea of underserving this population because all they can afford is suburbia is a dangerous one. Everyone who needs transit access does not have the means to move to where it is good.
• We’ve already created a pattern of metropolitan-style rapid transit construction in the city. Not building a rapid transit line (regardless of mode choice) into the last metropolitan region without it would essentially be slating the SW Corridor as a place where business, employment, and residential development would be discouraged. It would place the SW Corridor at a significant competitive disadvantage against areas of the region that already have rapid transit.
Alexander:
I may have mis-quoted Jarrett, or simplified his concerns.
However: from my point of view – there are always going to be winners and losers as far as where development goes. We would do well as a region to have the winners be transit accessible and losers be car-dependent. For example- building out a huge jobs complex in north Hillsboro (just added to the UGB) might make sense if we were providing more transit service to that route. However if we’re just going to put transit in after the fact then we’re missing an opportunity. Transit routes should be connected to the development they are intended to serve. If we’re going to spend 1-2 Billion on the SW corridor, I would hope that we can attract significant private investment around station areas, otherwise why are we bothering? The same applies to the existing systems. Its important to get the most bang for our transportation $. Especially in the current funding climate
The SW Corridor plan steering committee recently adopted “goals and objectives”, though has yet to publish them. Inquiries are being made as to when these will be available.
While we await the official statement of goals and objectives, this is interesting reading.