March 2013 Open Thread

Your March open thread.

  • ODOT will be inspecting MAX lines, after ATU757 provided KOIN-TV with pictures of rails (allegedly) in a state of disrepair.
  • While Portland has been building out its rail system, most “missed connections” (of a romantic nature) in the Pacific Northwest appear to be on the bus.
  • Metro is looking for feedback on recent proposed amendments to the 2035 RTP (Regional Transportation Plan)
  • Bike Portland wonders, as the CRC lumbers along, why 1000 Friends, the Sierra Club, and other environmental organizations (many of whom are on record as opposing the project) are sitting on the sidelines–the scuttlebutt is that Salem powerbrokers have informed these organizations that to publicly oppose the CRC is to jeopardize the remainder of their agenda. (Right-wing opposition to the CRC is far less constrained).
  • Willamette Week profiles Patricia McCaig, an adviser to Gov. John Kitzhaber and top CRC advocate–and whose salary is not paid by the State of Oregon, but by CRC contractor David Evans and Associates.
101 Comments

101 Responses to March 2013 Open Thread

  1. dan w
    March 2, 2013 at 4:30 pm Link

    Lawsuit threatens Sunrise Project

  2. nuovorecord
    March 2, 2013 at 9:29 pm Link

    I am shocked, SHOCKED, that the Clackamas Co. Commission didn’t refer the Sunrise funding to the voters.

  3. al m
    March 3, 2013 at 10:49 am Link

    Interesting ARTICLE out of Boston panning public rail investment.

  4. Anandakos
    March 3, 2013 at 6:07 pm Link

    @al m,

    That’s not an “article”, it’s an opinion.

  5. al m
    March 3, 2013 at 10:08 pm Link

    “”That’s not an “article”, it’s an opinion.””

    ~~>It’s an article written by a person and people usually have opinions.

  6. Engineer Bob
    March 4, 2013 at 11:18 am Link

    Washington State ballot initiative proposed to ban interstate highway tolling.

    http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Tolling-opponents-hope-to-qualify-initiative-to-ban-tolls-on-I-90-192161121.html

    Initiative 1285 at http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/initiatives.aspx

  7. al m
    March 4, 2013 at 11:36 am Link

    Oregon Catalyst weighs in.

  8. al m
    March 4, 2013 at 12:04 pm Link

    And why should ‘we’ be the WHIPPING BOY for the failures of the career technocrats.

    Career technocrats who walk away from these messes they themselves have created as millionaires.

  9. EngineerScotty
    March 4, 2013 at 2:42 pm Link

    TriMet has announced something called the Westside Service Enhancement Plan; designed to improve service in Washington County–or at least Beaverton and Hillsboro (Tigard and Tualatin aren’t part of this). Of course, this appears to be the start of a planning activity, not the conclusion of it–so there’s nothing to look at but the web page at this point. And of course, there’s no timeline or funding mentioned so far…

    Among the highlights:
    * Reverse the Red and Blue lines in Washington County. Red line connects PDX with Hillsboro, Blue Line connects Gresham with Beaverton TC. (Obvious question.
    * HCT along TV Highway, augmenting/replacing the 57. What sort of HTC is not mentioned…though I assume it would be bus enhancements at this point.
    * Increase N/S bus service to help build the grid.
    * Frequent frequent service along Hall (this has been in the TIP as a priority item since forever), 185th/Farmington (the 52, which makes sense), Cornell (the 48, which also makes sense) 174th and 229th (which currently have no bus service…), and other frequency improvements elsewhere.
    * BRT treatments in various areas.
    * Crosswalk enhancements (sorely needed)
    * More bike parking at MAX stations
    * Shuttle bus service, presumably to the plethora of industrial parks in Hillsboro which are difficult to serve with traditional transit.

    As a resident of this part of town, this sounds good–though How To Pay For It is a great mystery at this point. I’ll have more to say about this, and what might be missing, in a later article…

  10. al m
    March 4, 2013 at 6:03 pm Link

    Meanwhile back at CRC who is GETTING RICH?
    (and they whine about our health care, this country makes me sick)

  11. Chris I
    March 5, 2013 at 7:57 am Link

    The red/blue line reversal makes some sense. I imagine there are more people on the west side looking for a one-seat ride to the airport than there are looking for a one-seat ride to Gresham. Any data to support this?

  12. Allan
    March 5, 2013 at 10:26 am Link

    I don’t think the airport switch makes sense. This smacks of something that rich Washington County folks would say they want and then not use the 1-seat ride. Almost no-one goes to the airport more than once per week.

    I think that from a system perspective, the current system is way better because of the strength of the Blue line. Why would you mess with your strongest service? If the Red line was extended west without cutting the Blue line that would do a good deal for Transit on the west side. having transfer times of

  13. Chris I
    March 5, 2013 at 11:31 am Link

    Remember, a lot of people work at the airport, and at the businesses in and around Cascade Station.

  14. EngineerScotty
    March 6, 2013 at 3:20 pm Link

    This Portland Afoot article on GlobeSherpa, TriMet’s partner for its upcoming smartphone-based ticketing service, is worth a read.

  15. Anandakos
    March 7, 2013 at 1:04 am Link

    I took the Yellow Line from Delta Park to downtown this evening for a business meeting. I have a book of $1 tickets since I’m an “Honored Citizen”, and I tried to use one.

    The validator was completely useless; it made an otherwise unreadable mark on the ticket of just three digits. But it was readable enough that I couldn’t go to the other validator and punch it without having an inspector say “You’re reusing that ticket!”

    So I put my credit card in the machine and got another $1 Honored Citizen ticket. In Scotty’s post about costs two days ago, I saw a little tidbit that when someone uses the ticket machines, it costs Tri-Met $0.70. Even if someone is buying a normal adult fare, over a quarter of the fare goes to the TVM. That is crazy!

    Why did they stop dispensing 10 ticket batches? I expect that most of that seventy cents is the transaction charges from the banks and TVM vendor. Some is for the printers and ink of course, but that can’t be very much at all.

    Is it because it takes a while to print a batch of 10? I guess that must be it, because if an HC uses a credit card for individual rides frequently, they might just as well let him or her ride for free.

    I hope this phone pay thing yields more net revenue than the machines do.

  16. EngineerScotty
    March 7, 2013 at 8:04 am Link

    One question that comes to mind upon reading the GlobeSherpa article at Portland Afoot is this:

    “Inspectors and bus operators will check fares by looking at the smartphone screen, with no need for paper.”

    I certainly hope not. Inspectors need to be using automated devices that can communicate with a smartphone–either by NFC (near field communications), or even by examining a QR code, that determines a) the unique ID of the phone or device (generally by an automated, and encrypted, challenge/response protocol, to verify the authenticity of the software on the user’s device), b) the cryptographic signature of the ticket, and c) verifies–by consulting a database of vended tickets stored at HQ–that the e-ticket in question was vended to the owner of that particular phone.

    Anything that simply involves an inspector simply looking at a screen, will be even easier for miscreants to forge/spoof than paper tickets are. The only real physical security for paper tickets is the foil strip–otherwise nothing prevents an enterprising cheat from printing their own at home, given a decent printer and the right style of paper–which can probably be located at any office-supply store.

    Smartphone displays are even easier to spoof–no office supplies needed–particularly if the Android platform is supported, where there’s no single entity that can remotely revoke fraudulent apps, as Apple can do with a (non-jailbroken) iPhone.

    GlobeSherpa’s website mentions both NFC and QR Codes, but also mentions “visually authenticated tickets”. The latter, unless there’s some innovation that I’ve not considered, is an invitation to widespread fraud.

  17. Cameron J
    March 7, 2013 at 9:12 am Link

    I still think having tickets on Smartphone is a well intentioned idea that is certainly going to fall flat in many ways. Ones that come to mind include what Scotty said, and the fact that smartphone batteries are notoriously weak, and once your phone dies, your ticket goes with it.

  18. Anandakos
    March 7, 2013 at 9:16 am Link

    @Chris I,

    I know a young man who works at the airport office of the Port of Portland and commutes from Willow Creek every day. There can’t be too many like him, but I know he would appreciate having a one-seat ride to work.

    That’s dedication to a car-free life!

  19. EngineerScotty
    March 7, 2013 at 10:00 am Link

    Ones that come to mind include what Scotty said, and the fact that smartphone batteries are notoriously weak, and once your phone dies, your ticket goes with it.

    A well-designed ticketing system would survive a power-outage on a smartphone (i.e. once the phone is powered back on, the ticket remains valid and available for inspection); fare inspectors could be required to carry power-supply hardware for phones (a proprietary Apple port for iPhones, and a micro-USB connector for most other stuff) to turn on phones. Alternatively, they could write tickets in this case–but users who can prove that yes indeed, they had a valid ticket but their phone died before an inspection, would have charges dropped (and an expedited procedure for doing so).

  20. EngineerScotty
    March 7, 2013 at 10:00 am Link

    Ones that come to mind include what Scotty said, and the fact that smartphone batteries are notoriously weak, and once your phone dies, your ticket goes with it.

    A well-designed ticketing system would survive a power-outage on a smartphone (i.e. once the phone is powered back on, the ticket remains valid and available for inspection); fare inspectors could be required to carry power-supply hardware for phones (a proprietary Apple port for iPhones, and a micro-USB connector for most other stuff) to turn on phones. Alternatively, they could write tickets in this case–but users who can prove that yes indeed, they had a valid ticket but their phone died before an inspection, would have charges dropped (and an expedited procedure for doing so).

  21. al m
    March 7, 2013 at 12:23 pm Link

    A well-designed ticketing system would survive a power-outage on a smartphone (i.e. once the phone is powered back on, the ticket remains valid and available for inspection); fare inspectors could be required to carry power-supply hardware for phones

    ~~~>Can hardly wait to see how this mess turns out! As Trimet adds complexity/capacity it also increases the internal chaos.

    Have been watching it for years.
    They just lucky they are an unaccountable government tax sucking organization.

  22. EngineerScotty
    March 7, 2013 at 10:13 pm Link

    United Streetcar CEO Chandra Brown has been named Deputy Assistant Secretary of Manufacturing for the US Department of Commerce by President Obama. This is a sub-Cabinet level post that does not require Senate confirmation. Of course, the President has yet to nominate anyone for Secretary of Commerce.

    In related (non-)news, there has been some speculation that Congressman Earl Blumenauer may be nominated by Obama to the post of Secretary of Transportation to replace Ray LaHood, who has announced his intention to resign as soon as a successor is confirmed. Bluemenauer was rumored to be a candidate for the job in 2009, and has a strong transportation resume. As OR-3 is a safe Democratic seat, there would be little political risk to the nomination either. Were he selected, he would be (I believe) the first Cabinet secretary from Oregon since Neil Goldschmidt served in the same post under Jimmy Carter.

  23. Anandakos
    March 8, 2013 at 8:43 am Link

    @Scotty,

    Is there any possibility of the pay-by-phone system being used as an “in-car” TVM? That is, the inspectors board a car and it lights up with people purchasing tickets. Sort of a “just in time inventory management” for ticket cheats.

    I don’t know how long it would take to complete a transaction, and this may be an impossible situation. But it would be a good safeguard to make them valid only two minutes after purchase, or something like that.

  24. EngineerScotty
    March 8, 2013 at 2:24 pm Link

    An ODOT inspection of the MAX system, conducted after ATU 757 complaints (and a news report thereof), finds no “areas of safety concern”.

  25. EngineerScotty
    March 8, 2013 at 5:36 pm Link

    More interesting goings-on north of the Columbia, as the Washington State Senate mulls a bill that would take away C-TRANs ability to create a “high capacity transit district” within the city of Vancouver, to fund light rail operations in the ‘Couv.

    A light-rail levy failed last November in a vote throughout the C-TRAN service district. C-TRAN does presently have the authority, under Washington law, to create a smaller enhanced service district; only voters within this district would have a) be able to vote on the district’s formation and taxation, and b) subject to any taxes levied thereon. An anti-LRT state senator from Clark County, however, is proposing to revoke that authority–and limit C-TRAN (and presumably other transit districts in Washington) to “all-or-nothing” votes.

    It’s an interesting question, though–one that Jarrett Walker recently looked at. Portland Streetcar construction was financed with a Local Improvement District–a means by which a neigbhorhood can tax themselves for local improvements–but I’m not aware of any such districts being used to fund transit operations anywhere. (Oregon City does operate a city trolley service in the summer months, but that is paid for out of city general funds).

  26. Anandakos
    March 8, 2013 at 7:48 pm Link

    @Scotty,

    It’s the same argument that Seattle is having with Olympia: the state, at least thus far, refuses to allow Seattle to create an “overlay” transit district to fund a non-SoundTransit, non-Metro “Seattle Subway” system entirely within the city limits.

    I guess the folks in the countryside are afraid that the city will get toooooooooooo attractive to their young’uns if it has one ‘a them newfangled subway things.


    How ya’ gonna’ keep ‘em down on the farm,
    After they’ve seen U-Link?

  27. Douglas K
    March 8, 2013 at 8:12 pm Link

    U-link costs $1.9 billion for 3.15 miles with two stations. A mere $600 million per mile. Makes Milwaukie MAX seem like a bargain at a scant $200 million per mile.

    And when Tri-Met built a 3 mile light rail tunnel with one station? It came in under $200 million. Back in the 90s, to be sure, but still…

    Unless there are some unusually challenging geologic obstacles to deal with up there, it strikes me that Sound Transit makes Tri-Met look like a paragon of efficiency and frugality.

  28. al m
    March 8, 2013 at 8:29 pm Link

    Unless there are some unusually challenging geologic obstacles to deal with up there, it strikes me that Sound Transit makes Tri-Met look like a paragon of efficiency and frugality.

    Heck the Pentagon makes Sound transit look like
    WalMart!

    When it comes to spending our tax dollars there is no limit.

  29. Anandakos
    March 8, 2013 at 8:30 pm Link

    @Scotty,

    Well, it seems, then, that the thing to do is either for Vancouver to annex Hazel Dell and Salmon Creek and drop the service to Camas/Washougal, Ridgefield, and Battleground/Yacolt. In other words, shrink the C-Tran district again to those areas which are supportive of transit.

    Where are the rednecks in Helicopter Don’s rural hinterlands going to shop if they want to avoid that Socialist C-Tran LootRailTax®? Most of them already sneak over to Oregon, justifying their tax-avoidance as “drowning the baby in the bathtub”. So it probably wouldn’t make much difference to the sales at Van Mall.

    The other option, if Vancouver doesn’t want us (wouldn’t blame them), is to dissolve C-Tran and establish just a Vancouver City transit district. If there were no regional district to compete with, a Vancouver-only district should pass muster with the state.

    Most of the tax-yielding areas of the county are already within the city, soooooo


    Bye, bye, goobers bye-bye.
    Bye, bye, goobers don’t cry.
    The city will leave you,
    Far in the dust,
    The city will leave you,
    You know that it must!
    Bye-bye, goobers bye-bye,
    Bye-bye, goobers….now cry!

  30. Anandakos
    March 8, 2013 at 8:32 pm Link

    PS.

    I’d be very sad to lose my (long) walk-to one-seat service to anywhere in the county — and even downtown Portland for a significant tariff — from the 99th Street TC, but I’d be glad to do so in order to stick it to the goobers.

  31. EngineerScotty
    March 8, 2013 at 8:32 pm Link

    Well, the U-Link does have to tunnel under Ship Canal, whereas Westside MAX was “merely” tunnelling through a hill.

    That said, there is certainly evidence of runaway cost issues up in the Evergreen State, at least equal to (if not worse than) we have down here in Orygun.

  32. Anandakos
    March 8, 2013 at 8:35 pm Link

    @Douglas,

    Yes, you are so right, my friend. But you should see those stations. (Wolf whistle….). Yowie!

  33. Nick theoldurbanist
    March 8, 2013 at 9:46 pm Link

    If light rail ever comes to Vancouver, a lot of one seat rides will be lost. Guaranteed. It’s the nature of the beast.

  34. Anandakos
    March 8, 2013 at 11:26 pm Link

    @Nick,

    If the C-Tran district remains as it is, the only planned loss for express services to downtown Portland is the 105. The 199 and 134 are expected to continue. They may have reduced frequency if people start driving to the McLaughlin garage, but I doubt that will happen. The Max from McLaughlin will be much slower than the express buses, especially with a new HOV lane across the bridge span.

    I was referring to one-seat rides to places within Clark County from the 99th Street TC — Van Mall by two routes, the Lincoln Area, St. Johns and Clark College, Salmon Creek and WSUV, and Mill Plain/164th. Those will in no possible way be affected by the Yellow Line coming across the river.

    Still, I don’t think it’s a good use of funds, because of the cost and the limited additional ridership that the Yellow Line can absorb without a tunnel bypassing the Steel Bridge for the east/west line. The cost per additional boarding is going to be stupendous.

  35. Nick theoldurbanist
    March 9, 2013 at 8:26 am Link

    “Still, I don’t think it’s a good use of funds, because of the cost and the limited additional ridership that the Yellow Line can absorb without a tunnel bypassing the Steel Bridge for the east/west line.”

    >>>> Right now, the Yellow Line can’t really do better than 15 minute headways at rush hours, unless you cut into Blue Line frequency, which is not feasible. This is what I mean by a poorly designed crappy system.

    The things is, if we had built busways instead of light rail, things like this would have been non-problems.

  36. Anandakos
    March 9, 2013 at 8:46 am Link

    @Nick,

    I agree that the north/south line (Yellow and “Orange”) should have been another technology (Interstate Avenue could have been a “rapid streetcar” like Third Street in San Francisco — e.g. the same reserved right of way and maybe a couple of more stations — for about 2/3 the price and the same results). But the east/west line is well worth the investment.

  37. Lenny Anderson
    March 9, 2013 at 9:38 am Link

    Really, most Clark county commuters do NOT work downtown. Both Metro and CRC data have shown that.
    I think the Steel Bridge can handle trains as frequent as 90 seconds apart or 45 trains per hour per direction, so Green (6), Yellow (6), and Red (6) could all be running at 10 headways without impacting the Blue.
    ES would know this for sure.

  38. EngineerScotty
    March 9, 2013 at 9:56 am Link

    ES would know this for sure.

    I’m not *that* wonky. :)

    I’ve heard 2 minute headways or so is the practical limit–though the bottleneck isn’t the bridge itself, but the complicated set of switches and signals just east of the bridge, where there is a wye plunked down in the middle of Interstate Avenue. But the 5MPH limit on the bridge certainly doesn’t help.

  39. Nick theoldurbanist
    March 9, 2013 at 10:13 am Link

    Two minute headways on the Steel Bridge would be problematic. Like ES said, there is a 5 mph limit on the bridge; there are also crossovers (against opposing traffic) on BOTH sides.

  40. EngineerScotty
    March 9, 2013 at 11:07 am Link

    Nick,

    On the west side of the bridge, westbound Blue/Red trains have to cross eastbound Green/Yellow trains, but there is no interfering automobile movements. On the east side, the switching is complicated further by the need to occasionally give a green light to Interstate Avenue traffic.

  41. al m
    March 9, 2013 at 11:46 am Link

    Very creative VIDEO on light rail planning.

    Sounds like they have learned some lessons that Portland never learned.

  42. Douglas K.
    March 9, 2013 at 11:48 am Link

    I wonder if it would be viable to create a near-twin of the Steel Bridge (roughly identical towers and lift span) immediately to the south of the Steel Bridge. Twin bridges are nothing new — the Interstate Bridge and the Tacoma Narrows Bridge spring to mind.

    The “south” Steel Bridge could handle east-west MAX trains and the current bridge could take the north-south trains. That should eliminate the system’s major bottleneck. Put a couple of traffic lanes on the new bridge and there could be one car lane and one dedicated bus lane each way.

  43. Anandakos
    March 9, 2013 at 2:23 pm Link

    Right now there are four trains per hour in the AM peak direction on the Yellow Line, four on the Red Line, four on the Green Line, and seven on the Blue Line. That is 21 trains per hour crossing the Bridge. Let’s say that the Yellow Line doubles its frequency to carry riders from Clark County. That puts us at 25 trains per hour, dangerously close to the theoretical limit of 30, without any growth on the usually pretty crowded trains from Gateway.

    How many people can be carried in those four extra trains? There are about 60 seats on the average LRT car, and the comfortable standing capacity is about 100. So 160 times two cars per train times 4 trains per hour means that one thousand two hundred and eighty people will be leaving Clark County during the two peak hours in the morning and returning during the three peak hours in the evening in the most optimistic scenario.

    While there may be an increase in mid-day boardings as downtown Vancouver builds up, currently there aren’t many on the existing Yellow Line which is why its cost per boarding is so much higher than the other lines, nor are there on the direct #105. So most of the ridership will probably be in the peaks.

    The rest of the day the new Clark County non-peak southbound boardings may total 1,000 and the northbound 500. The afternoon peak is higher because people who make mid-day trips to the CBD tend to return at the same time as the commuters, which means that the mid-day northbound trips will be fewer.

    So let’s be generous and say a total of 4,000 boardings per day in each direction on a workday. Eight hundred million divided by 260 times 8,000 (2,080,000) is $385/weekday boarding/year. Even amortized over fifty years, and forgetting operating costs, it’s $7.80/actual discrete boarding. And, in all honesty, the weekend boardings are irrelevant; they might reduce the actual discrete boarding price to $7.50.

    Now maybe my math is completely wacko, but it seems to me to be reasonable and arithmetically correct.

    So, I hate to say it, but I agree with the rednecks in Vantucky. If the half mile wide, forty-foot deep river weren’t between the Expo Center and downtown Vancouver, why hell yes, build the thing. But that river is there, and is no doubt the reason that the Yellow Line isn’t already in downtown Vancouver. Crossing it with an LRT facility will at least quintuple the cost of the LRT guideway structure itself.

    I don’t agree with the rednecks for the same “loot rail” and “crime train” paranoid fantasies they have — and certainly not for their clear and present hatred for “people not like me” — but simply because of the cost per boarding. The subsidy will be enormous.

    @Douglas,

    The geometry of such a duplicated bridge would be pretty tricky. You’d need a more tightly curved ramp up on the west side approach which would eliminate the access to the eastbound lane on the existing bridge from Everett and southbound Naito. Northbound Naito might still access the existing eastbound lane with a newly build ramp, but traffic using it would have to cross the new bridge’s tracks on a level crossing at the east end of the bridge.

    Really what’s needed to solve the bottleneck is a tunnel for the east-west route. So investing a $100 million in a clone of the Steel Bridge would be temporary at best. With a tunnel the mall trains could have the Steel Bridge to themselves AND an improvement in coverage and speed through downtown.

    A tunnel which passes under the river in a loop to the north (in order to keep grades down to a decent minimum), has a stop at the edge of the Pearl District, a stop by the US Bank Tower, one by Pioneer Square, another in the government complex and a southern one around PSU would vastly improve the throughput of the east/west line and give it much better coverage of downtown.

    I realize that there is no chance of such a tunnel in our lifetimes (especially mine). However, if it does come about in some future decade, then extension of the Yellow Line into Clark County might make some sense, especially if downtown Vancouver has at that time gentrified enough to make it a real activity center.

    @Lenny,

    Again you argue that most Clark County folks don’t work downtown. You’re quoting from traffic studies, so I’m sure you’re right, but so far as I can tell nobody is disagreeing with you. What others are saying is that folks going to the industrial areas or hospitals in North Portland are not gonna ride Max with multiple transfers to get to a place of work within a six mile radius of the bridge that has free parking. They will not do it.

    So they’re really not germane to any discussion of LRT loads on the CRC.

    And even if they were going to ride, the trains to provide the capacity to carry them are going to have to cross the Steel Bridge. There won’t be any which originate in Clark County and turn back at Overlook Park. You can be certain of that.

  44. Jeff F
    March 9, 2013 at 5:34 pm Link

    Anandakos: I don’t know how long it would take to complete a transaction, and this may be an impossible situation. But it would be a good safeguard to make them valid only two minutes after purchase, or something like that.

    Which is precisely how it works, although I believe the delay is four minutes — the amount of time Fare Inspectors report it takes to clear a MAX car. And the exact purchase time is included in the security coding that the Inspector can view.

    Activating an already-purchased but unused ticket is nearly instantaneous but the purchasing process takes a good bit longer and is best done on WiFi, at least in the current test version.

  45. Nick theoldurbanist
    March 9, 2013 at 6:00 pm Link

    Scotty,

    By ‘opposing traffic,’ I meant RAIL traffic; this is the term we used about the NYC subway.

  46. al m
    March 9, 2013 at 7:15 pm Link

    Top 8 reasons people give up on transit HERE!

  47. Douglas K.
    March 9, 2013 at 9:40 pm Link

    The geometry of such a duplicated bridge would be pretty tricky. You’d need a more tightly curved ramp up on the west side approach which would eliminate the access to the eastbound lane on the existing bridge from Everett and southbound Naito. Northbound Naito might still access the existing eastbound lane with a newly build ramp, but traffic using it would have to cross the new bridge’s tracks on a level crossing at the east end of the bridge.

    So hypothetically, what if the eastbound lane were on the south side of the southern bridge? It would mean rebuilding the western ramp, but traffic from Everett and Naito could use the outer lane of the newer bridge with no track crossing at all. That might mean giving up the “inside” lanes as traffic lanes and just using them for pedestrian crossing. I’d prefer to use them as bus lanes, but I see the potential problems with access.

    I agree that an E/W tunnel would be better for congestion relief, but are the marginal benefits great enough to justify building a $1 billion+ tunnel as opposed to a $100 million bridge?

  48. Anandakos
    March 10, 2013 at 7:49 am Link

    @Douglas,

    The eastbound lane from Everett could certainly be on the south edge of a new bridge (I think that’s what you’re saying). The geometry would be similar to the existing ramp, wherein the auto traffic crosses the LRT tracks and angles left up a ramp. The ramp up from northbound Naito really should be reconfigured to the south as well should this happen.

    That would leave the “cantilevered” eastbound lane orphaned, though possibly some way to access it by buses only could be shoehorned between the new LRT ramp and the Port of Portland building.

    But doing this would certainly forever condemn the east/west line to its slow fifteen minute “schedule” between Jeld-Wen and Rose Quarter TC (add two or three minutes to actually get to Goose Hollow) — which is rarely met during peak hours. It’s would also dramatically improve the “slice of downtown” access that the current east/west routing gives. A tunnel which followed the geometry mentioned above would serve all of downtown Portland and allow a transit time between RQTC and Goose Hollow in nine or ten minutes because trains could reach speeds of 40 miles an hour between the stations.

    Yes, it would be a lot of money, but it would tie the two sides of the system together in a way that would make use across the slow downtown divide much more attractive.

    A second bridge is not crazy, but it is a permanent decision that should be considered very carefully.

  49. Lenny Anderson
    March 10, 2013 at 12:43 pm Link

    So is it two minutes between trains on the Steel Bridge? At five MPH that should be doable. I have stood in the RQTC and watched trains come over the bridge one after the other during the AM peak. Two minutes apart if that.
    So 30 trains/hour each way over the Steel Bridge.
    That allows the Green and Yellow to go to 10 minute frequency in the peaks, that’s 12 trains, plus 4 for the Red at 15 minute frequency, leaving 14 trains per hour for the Blue, or just about every 4 minutes. Should do for a good long while.
    So why would anyone ride a MAX train from Vanc.,WA; many residents work along the line in N PDX…Fred Meyer, New Seasons, Kaiser, Widmer Brewing, Portland Water Bureau, and on and on. Others work in Lloyd, an easy transfer to E/W trains at the RQTC. Or Swan Island…via the FS 72 or 85 buslines. Rivergate is tougher, but overall there is a lot of connecting bus service E/W off the Yellow Line.
    Too many transfers? Bus/MAX/bus is not the end of world, and not unusual, but many riders will use a P&R at the home end of the trip, leaving a single transfer.
    Would 6 trains in the peak be enough? MAX trains…two double cars…carry at least 250 seated & standing, so that gets you 1,500 per peak hour; about the same as a freeway lane or more. That said, I am on record as opposed to the CRC since 2002! All we really need is HCT on an arterial bridge with a big wide sidewalk.
    Meanwhile, I sure wish C-Tran would just turn the 105 around at Delta Park/Vanport; with 15 minute frequency all day, it would offer an very easy transfer to the Yellow, just like the 65 to the Red Line at Parkrose TC.

  50. Nick theoldurbanist
    March 10, 2013 at 2:48 pm Link

    “Meanwhile, I sure wish C-Tran would just turn the 105 around at Delta Park/Vanport; with 15 minute frequency all day, it would offer an very easy transfer to the Yellow, just like the 65 to the Red Line at Parkrose TC..”

    >>>> C-Tran bus #4 already goes to Delta Park every 15 minutes all day, all the way from Van Mall along E. Fourth Plain.

  51. Douglas K
    March 10, 2013 at 5:13 pm Link

    A tunnel which followed the geometry mentioned above would serve all of downtown Portland and allow a transit time between RQTC and Goose Hollow in nine or ten minutes because trains could reach speeds of 40 miles an hour between the stations. [snip] A second bridge is not crazy, but it is a permanent decision that should be considered very carefully.

    No argument there. The two concepts would need to be lined up against each other — preferably versions drafted by proponents of each project to avoid the “straw man” options that plague so many EIS processes. Is trimming eight or nine minutes from Lloyd Center to Goose Hollow worth the extra expense of a tunnel? What if eliminating/consolidating stops on the surface line between Lloyd Center and Goose Hollow, plus the faster travel time across a new bridge, could shave three or four minutes from the surface segment?

    I think a tunnel would be the way to go if we need to expand the Blue Line to three or four cars per train. But if longer trains aren’t in the cards, I’m skeptical that the marginal benefit of a tunnel would justify the cost.

  52. Lenny Anderson
    March 10, 2013 at 6:28 pm Link

    Nick, and the 44 Limited comes down from Orchards along along 4th Plain in the peaks. But nothing comes down I-5 from Salmon Creek, 99th and Downtown Vanc. to the Yellow Line. Its weird!
    Note: the 4 comes in by way off Jantzen Beach, adding a good 5 minutes; the 44 does not. As we all know, if there is no service, no one will ride it!

  53. Anandakos
    March 10, 2013 at 6:32 pm Link

    @Douglas,

    Certainly you’re right that a tunnel would be an enormous cost and shouldn’t be considered unless Portland really does attract a signification fraction of those additional million inhabitants by 2030 (I’m skeptical of that big number).

    Even with stop consolidation (there certainly is no need for both OldTown/Chinatown and Skidmore Fountain, that’s for sure; ditto KingsHill/SW Salmon and JeldWen Field) you’d only save a minute and a half or so. Maybe you could remove one of the four stops each along Morrison and Yamhill without overcrowding the stations, but which pair?

    If the sides of the Pioneer Court House along those streets had wider sidewalks, that would allow three very nicely spaced stations, but it isn’t so you’d have to remove one of the two busiest stations downtown, either the ones at the Square or the ones on either side of Pioneer Place. That’s a tough choice and makes to pair close and the third pair far away whichever one you choose. I think that’s why they put in four.

    Which was just fine when they were the end of the Gresham Blue Line. It’s not so good when they’re smack-dab in the middle of the run.

    @Jeff,

    Thanks for the clarification; sounds like it would be fraud proof, then, as long as Scotty’s safeguards (don’t just look at a picture on the screen….) are adopted.

  54. Douglas K
    March 10, 2013 at 9:54 pm Link

    Maybe you could remove one of the four stops each along Morrison and Yamhill without overcrowding the stations, but which pair?

    I would close the stations at 1st/2nd/3rd Avenues and move the Pioneer Place stations from 4th/5th to 3rd/4th. The stations on Morrison are spaced only a block apart anyway. When MAX first opened, the Pioneer Place station didn’t even exist — the train went from 3rd to Pioneer Square.

    On the east side, I’d move the 7th Ave station west (between the Streetcar tracks) and close the Convention Center station — Rose Quarter can serve the Convention Center. Like the Pioneer Place Station, Convention Center was added later… and really wasn’t needed.

    And of course, close King’s Hill and consolidate Skidmore and Old Town.

    (I would also move the 9th/10th stations to 10th/11th, which doesn’t save any time but spaces Morrison and Yamhill stations further apart and makes for better connections to the Streetcar.)

    At about 45 seconds per station, I think that shaves around three minutes. And then knock off another thirty seconds or so if the new bridge allows MAX to cross without slowing down. I think three to four minutes would be reasonable projected time savings.

  55. EngineerScotty
    March 11, 2013 at 4:08 pm Link

    Portland Afoot on TriMet management pay raises issued last spring.

  56. Anandakos
    March 11, 2013 at 7:04 pm Link

    Douglas,

    A tunnel would necessarily have the Rose Quarter station underground in order to descend enough to get under the river, so the Convention Center station would doubtless be closed for it as well. As a result you can’t claim credit for lopping 45 seconds off by closing that one, at least not in a comparison.

    That said, a duplicate bridge and all those station closures would certainly be an improvement over the status quo.

    Heck, the station closures alone could be an immediate improvement, although I’m not sure that you really can move the Library and 10th Avenue stations west. The stations use the extra width provided by the parking garage setback. The next block on both Morrison and Yamhill has ordinary width sidewalks.

    It clearly is a better location geographically, though, you are right about that.

  57. Douglas K
    March 11, 2013 at 7:52 pm Link

    Anandakos:

    Just to clarify: I’m looking at total time savings from tunnel vs. changes on the surface. So I count every station closure or consolidation toward total time saved. I take it as a given the tunnel will save more time — not only can the trains travel faster, it will make fewer stops. It would also be more reliable, as trains in a tunnel won’t be involved in traffic accidents or delayed by gridlock or jaywalkers. But “how much more time?” remains the important question.

    If we were building the line new, I might favor a subway as the best option. Ditto for a four-car upgrade to the whole system. But four car trains aren’t on the horizon as far as I know, and we have the surface track in place already. My inclination is to go for the most cost-effective approach.

    I think the MAX stations could be moved across 10th for the same reason there’s a station on Morrison between 2nd and 3rd (or alongside Pioneer Place, for that matter). Stations can work on ordinary width sidewalks, although I can see potential problems with people blocking the doors of all those restaurants. That may be just a design challenge to be addressed by careful placement of benches and shelters.

  58. R A Fontes
    March 11, 2013 at 8:24 pm Link

    CSPAN is now (8:20 PM) covering the APTA legislative conference in D.C. FTA Director Rogoff chose Baltimore’s Red Line and the CRC as two projects which showed the necessity and progress of efforts to cut red tape to save energy.

  59. Nick theoldurbanist
    March 11, 2013 at 8:26 pm Link

    Just ask Trimet and Metro if they have any intention of ever building a tunnel to replace the Steel Bridge. Then I think you’ll find out just how unrealistic the above discussion is.

  60. Lenny Anderson
    March 11, 2013 at 9:19 pm Link

    Just do the math..at about $100M per minute saved it just does not add up. Put motor vehicles in tunnels under the Willamette and the Columbia. But Rosie to work!

  61. Anandakos
    March 11, 2013 at 11:23 pm Link

    @Lenny,

    Well that’s $100 million per canonical minute saved. Multiply that by the thousands of riders daily who are destined to somewhere in downtown other than the lateral slice of it that is currently served, plus the Pearl district, plus the through riders, and you get many millions of minutes saved per year. You get that by more rapid rides through the CBD and by putting a much greater percentage of riders closer to their destinations.

    I’m not saying do it right now. Portland needs to prove it can get growing again before any big projects should be embarked upon (including the CRC in any form).

    Since the Steel Bridge makes Max to Vancouver a huge waste as well by limiting the number of people who can be carried, Douglas proposed the alternative of cloning the Steel Bridge right next to it (only without the lower deck obviously). All I said is “think very carefully about that before doing it, because it will effectively foreclose any possibility of a cross-river tunnel in the future”.

  62. Douglas K
    March 12, 2013 at 8:48 am Link

    Douglas proposed the alternative of cloning the Steel Bridge right next to it (only without the lower deck obviously)

    Well, the cloned bridge could include a lower deck if TPTB wanted a really wide, really expensive walkway/bikeway between Waterfront Park and the Eastbank Esplanade. But that’s not even remotely central to the concept.

    One more advantage to the tunnel idea: we could keep the Lloyd Center to Goose Hollow MAX line as a “free” (or almost free) Streetcar line; the capital cost would involve rebuilding the stations and probably adding some new ones, buying new vehicles, and putting in new switching tracks at the existing Streetcar/MAX crossings. The tunnel would add a new transit line in the core; my “cloned bridge” concept simply improves the existing one a bit while eliminating the bottleneck at the core of the system.

  63. EngineerScotty
    March 12, 2013 at 9:00 am Link

    More on Payraisegate. :)

    http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/index.ssf/2013/03/trimet_execs_received_big_pay.html

  64. Anandakos
    March 12, 2013 at 12:18 pm Link

    @Douglas,

    I like the idea of re-purposing the east west line for streetcars. I’d thought of it when thinking about where a tunnel should go, but never mentioned it in a post because it seemed like a distraction at the time. I usually ramble on long enough as it is…..

    In truth the development potential of the inner west side is huge. It’s already properly zoned, and there are quite a few vacant lots. Add a stop around 13th and keep Kings Hill/Salmon (it’s perfectly fine for a streetcar to stop that frequently), and you’ve probably got another Pearl District.

    If they ever build out the MLK North streetcar proposal using the existing east/west line would be a more direct and quicker entry to downtown than either going all the way down to OMSI or passing through the Pearl District.

    I think if a tunnel were to be built that it would make sense for the Green Line to switch off the transit mall and use it too, because the tunnel would serve the same destinations as the mall does now and it would provide a single set of loading platforms for passengers heading out I-84 as far as Gateway.

    The alignment envisioned would have the tubes stacked through the curve between the Government Center station and the PSU station so that a branch to the south could be linked in there should LRT be extended to OHSU and the southwest. This allows merging of routes without a level crossing.

    The PSU tunnel station would be under Mill or Montgomery Street west of Broadway. A tail track just west of the PSU station would provide a turn-back option for the Green Line trains until the spur to OHSU would be completed.

    The tunnel would continue west under I-405 and through the hill between Jefferson and US26 to a portal almost under Vista Avenue (just to the east of the bridge footings). An underground station would be required behind First United Methodist; the streetcars would turn around in the circle in front of it like the MLK buses do today.

  65. Nick tholdurbanist
    March 12, 2013 at 3:54 pm Link

    HA! Like these tunnel schemes are ever going to come to fruition. Dream on – Trimet is virtually bankrupt, and CRC will be sucking up funds.

  66. dan w
    March 12, 2013 at 3:56 pm Link

    @Lenny,

    Well that’s $100 million per canonical minute saved. Multiply that by the thousands of riders daily who are destined to somewhere in downtown other than the lateral slice of it that is currently served, plus the Pearl district, plus the through riders, and you get many millions of minutes saved per year. You get that by more rapid rides through the CBD and by putting a much greater percentage of riders closer to their destinations.

    This, plus any new LRT river crossing in the Steel Bridge’s vicinity, whether a tunnel or a bridge, wouldn’t be subject to the maddening 5 mph speed limit currently in force on the Steel; the cumulative time savings alone would hopefully make this worthwhile in the long run. And it can/should even include more than two tracks… might as well get it right the first time.

  67. Anandakos
    March 12, 2013 at 4:46 pm Link

    @Nick,

    Of course there won’t be a tunnel in the next ten years, although if a tunnel is ruled out permanently, Douglas’ bridge might come in that time. If not maybe in twenty it will be there, especially if AGW drives lots of people out of the drought states. Whatever the driver, though, Portland has to show that it has the ability (and the desire) to grow enough to make it worthwhile.

    And, as Douglas points out, going to a tunnel has system-wide costs as well as those to bore it. It really only makes sense if the system is running three or four car trains, which means that stations have to lengthened all along the east-west line.

    Unfortunately, because of Portland’s short blocks, adding cars to reduce the congestion on the Steel Bridge is not an option with surface operation.

    Dan is right that Douglas’ idea of a new bridge would probably not be subject to the creeping five mph speed limit of the Steel Bridge; it’s over 100 years antique and the UP does NOT want it shaken and stirred.

    But a new bridge, which would still have to have a lift span even if only opened for the Navy ships at Rose Festival, could probably be designed for higher speeds. That would be a definite improvement aside from keeping the two east-west and north-south routings separate.

  68. al m
    March 12, 2013 at 6:36 pm Link

    Where is the discussion about the ROGUE TRIMET EXECUTIVES?

  69. EngineerScotty
    March 12, 2013 at 10:53 pm Link

    Mentioned upthread as soon as the story broke, I’ll have more to say later,

  70. al m
    March 13, 2013 at 2:35 pm Link

    Drama:

    ~~~~>”The bureau had originally projected $1 million in annual fare box revenues which supported 11% of the $8.9 million operating budget,” the PBOT budget analysis says. “Since the mid?September 2012 go?live, however, the fare box revenue are taking in about 55% of what had been expected by this time.”

    Uh Huh, great, wonderful. So glad they waste precious transit dollars on that.

  71. dave
    March 13, 2013 at 2:47 pm Link

    Um, I told you so!!!

    When you start charging for a free service, people don’t want to pay.

  72. al m
    March 13, 2013 at 7:16 pm Link

    When you start charging for a free service, people don’t want to pay.

    ~~~>it appears you were indeed correct. 1/2 the people said ‘screw it’

  73. Lenny Anderson
    March 13, 2013 at 8:54 pm Link

    When I first lived for a brief time in Frankfurt am Main in the 80′s, Bokenheim (the U. District) was served by a couple of streetcar lines…one to the main train station (still running) and the other to the center of the city.
    The U-Bahn was under construction and opened in the late 80′s. As a result a pleasant, often sun lit streetcar ride down Bokenheimer Landstrasse was replaced by a quick dash thru an always dark tunnel on an U Bahn train. A bit faster, but at a cost. Hence my preference for putting motor vehicles in tunnels and transit in public ROW if at all possible. Why should transit riders have to go down into tunnels?
    A lot of study was done on the tunnel option along the Mall during the South/North planning here in the 90′s, but in the end it was rejected as having too much cost and too little benefit. Somewhere in Metro’s library one should be able to find this work. On that CAC was an ex New Yorker who loved subways, but recognized that Portland was a long way from needing one.
    I think its important to note that most people do not ride all the way from Lloyd to Goose Hollow. That is a long, frustrating slog, but I’ve noticed that by the time you reach Pioneer Courthouse Square riders from one direction have emptied out and been replaced by a whole new set.
    There is data for that at TriMet I am sure. And I agree there are too many stops; I battled long and hard against the Salmon St./Kings Hill station, but lost to the MAC lawyers who wanted their own stop. MAX reflects politics as well as planning.
    I do wonder what the comparative overall dwell time would be between fewer stations with longer dwell time and more stations with shorter. A wash?
    In the meantime if the signals downtown were set for 15 mph instead of 12mph, we could move trains a bit faster with little harm done. I don’t think MAX with signal pre-emption and its own ROW moves much faster that Streetcar between NW Glisan and PSU. Keeping motor vehicle traffic moving in Portland’s so called “congested” downtown still rules the day.

  74. Nick theoldurbanist
    March 13, 2013 at 10:18 pm Link

    “On that CAC was an ex New Yorker who loved subways, but recognized that Portland was a long way from needing one.”

    >>>> That describes me too, as an ex-NYer. Portland does not even need light rail, for that matter.

  75. Douglas K
    March 14, 2013 at 12:29 am Link

    I doubt Portland will ever need a subway. I just don’t see that level of future population growth happening, nor are we ever likely to come remotely close to Manhattan density … or even get a stretch like LA’s Wilshire Boulevard. It’s fun to think about, but as I mentioned before, a subway would arise from a need to run four-car trains — meaning that the Blue Line running on six-minute peak-hour headways, augmented by Red and Green line service on twelve minute headways between Gateway and downtown/Beaverton, consistently leaves people at the platform on a daily basis.

    Somehow, I can’t picture any of the current or proposed LRT corridors ever getting that level of ridership.

  76. Ron Swaren
    March 15, 2013 at 9:19 am Link

    What’s next? T. Boone Pickens for Energy Secretary?

    http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-doubles-down-on-natural-gas-2013-3

    http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/03/seat-20130303.html

    Did I say I hate diesel buses?

  77. Ron Swaren
    March 15, 2013 at 9:33 am Link

    Ballard Power systems will build 10 hydrogen fuel cell powered buses for Aberdeen Scotland:
    http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/03/ballard-20130314.html#more

    Ballard plans for a total of 40 such buses in Europe by 2014.

    This may not be the permanent way out of fossil fuel public transit, but at least they are showing it can be done.

  78. al m
    March 15, 2013 at 3:58 pm Link

    It appears that the streetcar is still FREE!

  79. EngineerScotty
    March 15, 2013 at 4:53 pm Link

    The US Coast Guard considers the CRC bridge height mitigation to be inadequate.

  80. EngineerScotty
    March 18, 2013 at 10:27 am Link

    Al,

    The Sprinter line in northern San Diego county is more like WES than it is like MAX–calling it “light rail” is stretching the meaning of the term. It uses DMUs (diesel multiple units) operating on an active freight line, rather than electrified vehicles operating in a dedicated ROW. One difference between Sprinter and WES is that since freights don’t run during Sprinter hours (whereas freights may run concurrently with WES), Sprinter trains are not FRA compliant, and thus cheaper to run than WES (which is FRA compliant), but more expensive than MAX.

  81. EngineerScotty
    March 19, 2013 at 5:07 pm Link

    A Clackamas County judge has ordered a ballot title change for a May ballot item to “approve” payment of further County obligations to TriMet for the Milwaukie MAX line. The judge agreed with the petitioner, that the initiative has no real effect, whether it passes or fails, on the County’s obligations to TriMet.

    Essentially, it appears that it makes the May ballot measure an advisory vote.

  82. Anandakos
    March 19, 2013 at 8:35 pm Link

    Scott,

    Thanks for the reality check for the aspirational residents of the new Alamo in Clackamas County.

  83. Anandakos
    March 19, 2013 at 9:28 pm Link

    [personally directed comment removed]

  84. Cameron J
    March 19, 2013 at 10:42 pm Link

    [personally directed comment nonexistent]

  85. EngineerScotty
    March 19, 2013 at 11:13 pm Link

    C-TRAN board votes to further advance Fourth Plain BRT project, despite questions about funding.

  86. al m
    March 19, 2013 at 11:19 pm Link

    Essentially, it appears that it makes the May ballot measure an advisory vote.

    ~~>Hopefully they will appeal and it will be overturned

  87. EngineerScotty
    March 19, 2013 at 11:25 pm Link

    Al, see article on the lawsuit. Clackamas County can cause trouble for TriMet, and might be able to delay MLR (and perhaps win concessions to go away), but the legal principle that state and local governments cannot pass laws to cancel their own contractual obligations, is well-settled.

  88. Chris I
    March 20, 2013 at 6:52 am Link

    Al,

    The MAX line is happening. Wishing for further headaches and resistance from Clackistan will just result in additional costs for Trimet, which will further erode service funding. Why would you want this?

  89. EngineerScotty
    March 20, 2013 at 11:07 am Link

    New video demonstrating GlobeSherpa’s TriMet ticket app. One bit of good news: It appears that fare inspectors will be able to validate tickets with QR codes–if you are inspected, there’s a control to display a QR code, which (presumably) an inspector carrying a device (even another phone) can use to check the ticket’s authenticity. Forging a ticket onscreen might get you past a bus driver (or a fare gate, should they be implemented on MLR) but such subterfuge won’t work with inspectors.

  90. EngineerScotty
    March 20, 2013 at 1:09 pm Link

    According to Michael Andersen on Twitter, TriMet board member (and real estate developer) Tiffany Schweizer is going to step down from the TriMet board.

  91. al m
    March 20, 2013 at 5:57 pm Link

    Hey Lenny, is THIS you?

  92. al m
    March 20, 2013 at 6:22 pm Link

    According to Michael Andersen on Twitter, TriMet board member (and real estate developer) Tiffany Schweizer is going to step down from the TriMet board.

    ~~~>How bout you Scott, why don’t you put in for it?
    Somebody from this site would be perfect?
    Chris Smith would be good, how bout you Chris, why don’t you put in for it?

  93. al m
    March 20, 2013 at 8:12 pm Link

    How bout you Scott, why don’t you put in for it?
    Somebody from this site would be perfect?
    Chris Smith would be good, how bout you Chris, why don’t you put in for it?

    ~~~~>Hey I’m not joking. Wouldn’t it be nice if SOMEBODY who actually had some understanding of transit was on that board. Chris Smith is kind of a crony (I don’t mean that in a bad way, only in a real world way) so he might actually have a chance to get on that board. One of you guys put in for it will ya! Bob, Scott, Chris, anybody that has actual knowledge of transit please at least apply.

  94. al m
    March 20, 2013 at 8:40 pm Link

    United States infrastructure gets a D
    U.S. Infrastructure gets D+ in annual report – The Washington Post

  95. EngineerScotty
    March 20, 2013 at 9:53 pm Link

    Unfortunately, those sorts of gigs generally go to those with some political juice. I doubt the governor even knows who I am… :)

    I do hope, though, that he has enough sense to broaden the board’s perspective, and not just include business leaders and such.

  96. al m
    March 22, 2013 at 11:02 am Link

    I do hope, though, that he has enough sense to broaden the board’s perspective, and not just include business leaders and such.

    I have no memory of anybody actually serving on that board that had the foggiest notion of transit in this area.

    See this is the problem personified, as long as this board is a ‘pay off’ position for somebody then we will always have a dysfunctional board..

    Chris has some juice why doesn’t he apply

  97. EngineerScotty
    March 22, 2013 at 12:42 pm Link

    According to the USDOT, Amtrak has over 2/3 of the Portland/Seattle travel market vs air travel.

    (Note: The USDOT figures exclude other modes of travel between the two cities, most notably bus and driving).

Leave a Reply

By posting a comment, you are granting a license to Portland Transport for your comment. Please refer to The Rules.