For quite some time, BRT (of various sorts) has been talked about in the TriMet system. It was considered for the original MAX line (at a time in which both BRT and LRT were virtually unheard of in the US); and it was given some serious consideration for PMLR. It remains a leading contender for the Southwest Corridor, though rail is on the table–and it has long been discussed in the abstract.
But starting this July, the Powell/Division Transit Project officially kicks off. Right now, there isn’t much outreach material at the site other than the usual kick-off boilerplate, and a corridor map:
A bigger version of the map can be downloaded here.
The project, as discussed at its new Metro homepage, assiduously avoids discussing mode. But as noted in the Open Thread, the draft Capital Asset Management and Investment Program for 2014-2018 seems to tip the hand somewhat–and makes it clear that regional planners foresee this being a BRT project:
The strawman
On page 165 of the CAMIP, one finds the following item:
BRT First Corridor – Powell – Division
BRT service with new, dedicated buses implemented under Very Small Starts federal program. This will be a limited stop, all day service, with distinctive branding and customer information, providing faster service along an existing Frequent Service Bus corridor. Project includes shelters, stop improvements, new buses
dedicated to the service, and targeted transit priority treatments. Corridor Study to determine alignment and treatment details begins July, 2013.
In addition, Metro planners essentially stated that they expect it to be BRT when the project was authorized last year. Despite the scepticism of some that BRT is only considered for political reasons (or to meet federal-funding requirements), I have every reason to believe that the region is serious about this. Why? Well…
- TriMet, and the region generally (but especially TriMet, which is the public face of transit planning) has gotten a lot of flak (some of it deserved) for expanding rail but letting the bus system wither. Actually building BRT, rather than merely talking about doing so, might quite some of those critics.
- The cities involved (Portland and Greshem) already have MAX lines serving them, and the Powell/Division corridor in runs parallel to the MAX Blue Line. The dynamic of “Beaverton got a MAX line, we want one too!!!!” simply doesn’t apply.
- The Blue Line also already provides higher-speed transit service in the Portland-Gresham market, so a class A or B transit solution isn’t really necessary.
- The corridor in question is already an established bus corridor, but one where installing light rail (or any dedicated-ROW transit) would be expensive. As both streets have high traffic volumes, mixed-traffic streetcar is probably not an appropriate choice either (Streetcar works better on streets without many cars).
- Money. LRT or high-end BRT is expensive; but class C+ BRT is relatively cheap. The CAMIP contains a budgetary estimate of about $40M–a figure I expect to change (likely in the positive direction) as plans are refinded, but nonetheless a useful estimate of what resources the region is willing to deploy.
Classifications of BRT
A quick review of some terminology. A longstanding criticism of BRT is that the term is used to variously refer to different levels of service, ranging from full busways like in Curitiba or in Brisbane, to limited-stop services with a distinct paint job. A particular objection is that BRT projects are often sold (sometimes by anti-transit interests looking to block a rail project) by promising Curitiba-quality, but what is delivered is far less. To avoid such confusion and or subterfuge, I’ll refer to a couple different ways of grading transit projects.
A common classification I like to use–one that works for back-of-the-envelope estimates, is the A/B/C classification described here. Briefly, class A (when applied to BRT) is a fully grade-separated busway (like Brisbane), where the bus neither has to stop at crossings nor get stuck in (auto) traffic. Class B refers to dedicated lanes, but with cross traffic (B+ might be a dedicates surface busway like the LA Orange line, B might be a median-running busway, and B- a so-called “business access/transit” lane), and class C refers to ordinary mixed-traffic operation. Class C+, generally the minimum level of operation for a service to be “rapid”, involves mostly mixed-traffic operation, but with some level of signal priority and/or queue jump lanes.
Another more robust classification is the Institute for Transit Development and Policy‘s BRT Standard, which evaluates BRT systems on many criteria (not just right-of-way). Bronze BRT is nothing to sneeze at (Eugene’s EmX was recently rated as bronze). And of course, other criteria such as fare collection and boarding methods, stop spacing, and vehicle choice will affect performance as much as characteristics of the right of way.
What Powell/Division might look like
As noted above, it appears that Powell/Division will be a “class C+” BRT, at least for the crucial stretch between the east end of the Ross Island bridge out to I-205. (The service will likely use the new PMLR transit bridge, which will be open and operational by the time the project is completed, and thus have exclusive transit lanes from OMSI all the way up the transit mall). As noted, the budget is in the tens of millions of dollars, as opposed to hundreds of millions or even billions, and there is simply no room on Powell Boulevard to widen the right of way, not without knocking down many of the buildings that make Powell such an excellent transit corridor (and existing neighborhood) in the first place. The budge simply won’t allow for either significant ROW acquisition or major new structures, and given that Powell is a state highway (and an important one), it’s probably safe to assume that converting auto lanes to bus through lanes is out of the question.
That doesn’t mean that performance can’t be improved.
Right now, the 9-Powell takes between 40 minutes and an hour, according to schedule to travel from Powell/Milwaukie to Gresham TC, a distance of 11.7 miles (and about 70 stops, or about 270m between stops). (The 4-Division/Fessenden takes similar time to cover a similar distance). According to Google, driving the route of the 9 takes 26 minutes, assuming normal traffic. Were a BRT along Powell to have an average stopping distance of, say, 450m (0.28 miles), that would correspond to 42 stops. That alone won’t necessarily improve things by itself–few runs of the 9 ever stop at every single stop along the way, but a more limited-stop service is likely to service every stop; and with local service, individual stops will take longer. But reducing the number of stops can make other optimizations possible.
A bigger lever to pull with BRT is reducing dwell time. It can take forever to board a high-floor bus, especially if the ramps need to be used. Low-floor busses are a bit better, but there is still the bottleneck that boarding passengers need to file past the driver and present fare. By contrast, precision-platform bus systems with articulated-buses, all-door boarding (and wide doors), and off-board fare collection (whether secure-platform or proof of payment) can achieve dwell times of 20 seconds or better, even with lots of passengers getting on and off. Doing this has a dramatic impact on end-to-end travel times, but obviously requires that stations be actual “stations”, rather than just poles in the ground, and a shelter and bench if you are lucky.
And while it’s likely that a fully-segregated busway is out of the question–if the bus can bypass some of the worst bottlenecks in the route, this can have a significant impact on performance. Where are the worst bottlenecks? Powell/Milwaukie. Powell/39th. Powell/50th/52nd/Foster. Powell/82nd, particularly. 92nd and the ramps at I-205. 122nd. 181st/182nd. Essentially, the major cross streets, where the light will be red more often than it is green. It is in these places that signal priority and/or queue jump lanes can pay a big benefit.
A few interesting links for those interested in comparing BRT performance: This study, and PT article. The study is (of course) far more scholarly and thorough, but is rather heavyweight reading.
What about the route?
A couple other interesting questions: What route will the BRT take? It’s generally assumed that the BRT will run on Powell between downtown and 82nd, jump to Division using either 82nd, 92nd, or the I-205 ramps, and the run on Division out to Gresham. An argument can be made for shifting over to Division at or about 62nd, (or even 52nd) to better serve Franklin High and/or Warner Pacific College, and avoid the nasty and crowded 82nd/Powell intersection. A second question is–terminate at Gresham TC, or extend the BRT to Mount Hood Medical Center and Mount Hood Community College? The corridor planning area includes both of these.
How will this affect the 4 and 9? Right now, these two routes run the length of Powell and Division, and are parallel corridors. But a BRT line that is half-Powell and half-Division might upset that apple cart. Would a single local bus line serve the other halves of these streets? Would the BRT overlay the 4 and the 9 (which might operate at reduced frequencies), with the latter proving local-stop service for those who may have trouble covering longer distances to BRT platforms that are spaced more widely.
36 responses to “Powell/Division project to (officially) start in July”
This isn’t “BRT” at all, without transit-only lanes in the core of the route, between 205 and the river.
The fact is, there is PLENTY of room of true rapid transit in that section, with only a handful of properties requiring acquisition.
I made a map of the width a while back: http://goo.gl/maps/p3jdF
Chicago is planning to implement true, median-running BRT with bus-only lanes, on a street with 90 feet of right-of-way including sidewalks. SE Powell generally has 60 feet to 70 feet of roadway, plus another 10 to 20 feet on each side of space before any buildings.
BRT could fit with one lane each way for general traffic, just like on E Burnside with MAX, or N Interstate. Weren’t those major routes before MAX was built, too?
Without an exclusive right-of-way, Trimet should not call this BRT, any more than the streetcar should be called rapid transit.
If all they are doing is consolidating stops, they had better not call this BRT.
One thing I would love to see on Powell is the conversion of the bus pull-out lanes into curb extension bus stops. Today, we carve out precious sidewalk space at the bus stops, the very place we should want *more* sidewalk capacity.
Because Powell is 2 lanes, we shouldn’t feel bad at all about making the bus stop in traffic.
I’d hope the keep the local lines along both Powell and Division. A BRT line (even class C+, which barely qualifies as BRT, IMO) should have stations spaced like light rail — typically serving only transfer points and significant trip generators. With stations as much as a mile apart, there would still be a need for good local service along the entire length of Division and Powell.
I like the idea of a jump from Powell to Division at 52nd — you get Franklin High, Warner Pacific, and PCC. Staying on Powell out to I-205 gets … what? A transfer to line 72? Division gives you that. Plus, the transfer to the Green Line would be easier at Division.
The big advantage I see to Powell from 52nd to I-205 is the potential for a dedicated busway, assuming you’re willing to spend the extra money to build it and tear out hundreds of trees in the process. I don’t see that happening.
And I agree that the line should terminate at Mt Hood Community College. Maybe even extend to Troutdale depending on potential ridership. That would be a lot less expensive than possibly extending the Blue Line out there someday.
Finally, in terms of designating “rapid” bus lines: I think Tri-Met should reassign the single digit bus routes (1, 4, 6, 8, 9) to double-digits today, and reserve the single-digit numbers for BRT. Make the Powell-Division BRT the new Line 1. I don’t see any realistic prospect of having more than 9 BRT routes in the Tri-Met region, so single-digit designation would probably be safe.
This is a great example of where BRT can just become BT. I would like to think that it goes without saying that local service must be maintained if the proposed BRT service has sufficiently long stop spacing to enable it to be “rapid”. If not, then I fear then many riders in that areas would be worse off than before – they would have to walk a much longer distance to get to a bus that’s only barely faster than the bus it replaced.
Because this would be the first BRT in the region, I think it’s VERY important that it’s done right and not just on the cheap. It would be very easy for it to get a negative reputation if it’s barely distinguishable from existing bus service and make implementation of it elsewhere much more difficult. One of the big reasons for the LRT vs. BRT divide is how much easier it is to value engineer BRT into an inferior service, whereas the nature of LRT makes that far less likely.
I don’t know, Metro seems to be suggesting this actually would be BRT, which would suggest a mixture of B and C levels, ala EmX in Eugene.
The C level has a TriMet designation of “enhanced bus” (though I have seen Metro use this term in SWC meetings also).
Not to sound like the late Ike Eisenberg, but can we pleae, please, puhleeeeeze electrify this?
I’m really tired of the endless debate over what “counts” as BRT. Here’s the definition I use: a bus service that is substantially faster than normal bus service. That’s it. Who cares how that is achieved? It may or may not involve exclusive lanes. The reason RapidRide C and D in Seattle have gotten criticism is because they are not really any faster than the bus routes they replaced, not that they didn’t have exclusive lanes. In those cases, what is slowing down the buses was the decision to go with 1/4-mile spacing for a big segment instead of 1/2-mile, the decision to use off-board payment at only certain stations, and the delay in getting enough signal priority.
In the case of Powell, if they can go to 1/2-mile or 1-mile spacing, that alone will speed up the bus a huge amount. Add in off-board payment and all-door boarding with 3-door articulated buses, and you’re looking at even more time savings. Add in bus bulbs and BAT lanes and queue jumps and signal priority? Even more.
There is no way there will be exclusive lanes on inner Powell–it is a state highway that carries 50,000+ vehicles a day, and there is no way you can reduce capacity. It is only 60′ curb to curb, so there simply isn’t room. The earlier comment that implied taking out already narrow sidewalks to put in bus lanes should be ignored as the terrible idea it is.
Outer Division should easily be able to include either exclusive lanes or BAT lanes, so that won’t be a problem. The transition to inner Powell via 82nd would be kind of tricky, and should probably include bus-only left-turn lanes with their own signal phase with priority. The other options (92nd and I-205) should not be used, because then this line would miss Portland Community College.
I’m intrigued by the idea of two levels of service. To me, there are two choices here. One is to replace normal bus service with BRT that has 1/2-mile spacing. In this case, we would be asking people to accept much wider stop spacing in exchange for much more fast and frequent and high-quality service.
The other option is to run BRT at 1-mile spacing with an underlying local that has 1/8 or 1/4 mile spacing. The BRT would be frequent and the local version would run every 30 minutes or so. That system would help deal with the howls of protest about how some people can’t walk very far, while still allowing a good BRT system to go in for 99% who have no problem walking a half mile to access transit. The disadvantages are that this system would be more complex and confusing, TriMet would still have to maintain tons of stops, and the buses may sometimes have difficulty passing each other.
As far as the Line 4 goes, my favorite approach is to have the outer Division and Outer Powell lines both use inner Powell. One way to do this would be to have the full Powell line continue as it is currently, and that would be the local service described above. That could continue to be called Line 9, as it would be the same as it is now. The new BRT would have its own name and would use outer Division and inner Powell with really wide stop spacing. The Line 4 would run on inner Division but its end of the line would be at PCC (82nd/Division) or at I-205 to connect with MAX. With the inner Division streetscape plan reducing capacity and most likely affecting reliability on the 4, it makes sense to make the line shorter and use Powell for long-haul trips.
I like staying on Powell until I-205, because you can take advantage of the service driveways left from properties demolished for the ex-future Mt. Hood Freeway between 52nd and I-205. You would need to finish the job that ODOT started, however, because several properties remain along the south side of the roadway. But then you would have a transit corridor that is completely separated from motor vehicles (half of it grade-separated).
I still like the idea of tunneling between 17th and 52nd to give this corridor the reliable, truly rapid transit it needs, since ODOT likely won’t budge on reducing automobile capacity. Put trolleybuses on it for all I care, if only to make anti-rail interests realize how indistinguishable the costs are for a quality LRT vs BRT corridor.
Otherwise, like the great Nick Falbo says, don’t call this BRT.
The disadvantages are that this system would be more complex and confusing, TriMet would still have to maintain tons of stops, and the buses may sometimes have difficulty passing each other
I don’t think it would be that confusing. LA does this with the Rapid lines. The local and rapid stops are simply across the intersection from one another, with Rapid typically stopping past the traffic light. I understand there’s some speed/reliability advantages to doing that with the Rapids.
A reasonable BRT-lite system would put the Rapid stations a fair distance apart, typically a mile or so. Assume the line follows MAX Orange line out to Powell, then put stations at 26th (transfer to 310), 39th (#75), 51st (transfer to #14 and #71) … then what? If it stays on Powell, it could travel non-stop to 82nd Avenue (#72). There are no more transfers and no significant clusters of apartments, offices or anything else that would warrant a BRT stop. If it goes up to Division, I could see a stop at 55th and Division to serve Franklin High School and another at 70th to serve Warner Pacific College. Either way, the BRT should serve PCC SE Campus.
Past 82nd, whether on Division or Powell, the next stop would be I-205 and the Green Line transfer. East of I-205, the BRT would be on Division. At that point it should act like the Blue Line: stops at 122nd (#71), 148th, 162nd, 182nd (#87), Eastman Parkway (near Gresham City Hall), and Gresham TC.
Basically, I can see the BRT working with just a dozen stops along Division and Powell between Gresham TC and the Orange Line corridor. Put those stops across the street from the corresponding #4 and #9 stops and build each Rapid station like a MAX station, and there shouldn’t be significant confusion for riders, and no problem with buses blocking one another. Alternatively, just make the bus stops long enough for a BRT plus a local bus, since there won’t be more than two showing up at once.
I say just keep it on Division all the way from Portland to Gresham. It’s a lovely, straight shot that even a fool can grasp. We all know how extra turns can slow down a bus, and this is supposed to be a fast one. The simplicity of it is also nice as well, and that’s often key to an intuitive system.
I would advocate stops being a half mile apart. I would hate to have stops spaced a full mile apart, and here’s why:
If you live midway between stops, you now have to factor in about ten minutes to get to your stop, or you can just rely on the crappy local that runs every 30 minutes. Say you’re only going a mile or two down the road, by foot, it’s between 20 to 40 minutes (depending on distance); by the local bus, it’s five minutes; and if you take the BRT, you have a ten minute walk to the station, a short ride, and then another walk that may be short or long depending on how close your destination is to the stop. This is only an example of BRT not being the best choice for this trip, so the local clearly wins. Of course, with lousy headways, it isn’t much consolation. If this were the conditions on a Division Street BRT, I would say, “To hell with this! I’ll stick to…” whatever my high frequency, local bus is on another street. Whereas stops every half a mile is much easier. The distances are still great enough to give decent speed, but the stops are close enough so that it’s more likely to be useful for medium-length trips. I don’t mind walking five minutes, but I do mind walking ten minutes or more to get to the bus every day. This can even be the case if the BRT might be a bit faster on the whole. I’d still rather use the local because it drops me off closer to where I actually want to go. Unless the time savings are truly significant, convenience wins out.
I also agree with many that I hope the standards will be high for BRT. They have to have actual, functioning signal priority (unlike MAX in Downtown and sometimes Interstate Ave.). Off-board fare collection at each stop is a must so you don’t get those jokers who spend three minutes digging out change from a dozen pockets on their person and also digging at length in bags or purses. Bus bulbs do work well, as they allow buses to just close the door and proceed forward without having to merge back into traffic.
Another consideration may be pedestrians at busy lights. We have all seen the situation where a light is green, but because of constant stream of pedestrians spaced just so that the right lane cannot proceed as long as someone’s waiting to turn right until the way is clear. Towards the last few seconds of the cycle, when the pedestrians have finally cleared out of the way, one car gets to turn, and the whole line behind is screwed out of the light. Among those screwed out of the light are buses that tend to stick to the right lane for obvious reasons. I propose doing what many cities in the world do in such cases: a light cycle specifically for pedestrians that allows them to cross between any corner in one shot while also segregating pedestrian movements from automotive traffic. At busy intersections, this could prove quite helpful and be a time-saver for buses.
There’s my three cents.
I’d echo much of what Zef says–at least from Milwaukie to 39th, expect very little exclusive-ROW, simply because Powell can’t easily be widened, and taking lanes from cars simply won’t happen.
The important things are a) to limit time spent at stops–and for a busy transit line, this means optimizing dwell time and stop number, and then b) to keep the service from getting stuck in traffic.
Powell/Division doesn’t need to have an average speed of 25-30MPH, which is what a higher-end rapid transit line would achieve (some parts of MAX get close to this). The off-peak average speed of the 9 (almost 18MPH) is actually not bad; it’s the rush-hour speed (11.7MPH) that’s a bit on the slow side–and there’s a lot of variance, given traffic conditions. EmX does about 16MPH, though it has quite a bit of exclusive lane to run in.
There are a few bad examples of “BRT” out there, that we ought to avoid: Some of LA’s Metro Rapid lines (the red busses, as opposed to the orange locals), don’t do any better than local bus service here does–it main difference from the, limited stop spacing and some signal priority; but many Metro Rapid busses are standard 40′ models, with the same dwell time issues as local service.
“Finally, in terms of designating “rapid” bus lines: I think Tri-Met should reassign the single digit bus routes (1, 4, 6, 8, 9) to double-digits today, and reserve the single-digit numbers for BRT. Make the Powell-Division BRT the new Line 1. I don’t see any realistic prospect of having more than 9 BRT routes in the Tri-Met region, so single-digit designation would probably be safe.”
Or perhaps designation of BRT routes could take letter form?
Powell-Division A (or P or D?), Barbur B, etc…
It would at least seem to be a better use of such a distinction than SEPTA back here in Philadelphia makes of it, which dates back to the confusing (and these days, totally nonsensical) time when transit in our city was just switching over from streetcars to buses, before about 98% of people in this city today were even alive…
The whole point of exclusive bus lanes is to put them where they are needed due to traffic conditions, not where its easiest to put them. There is no point in building bus lanes where traffic is light. Its madness to have packed buses stuck in traffic created by a bunch of SOVs clogging the streets.
I would advocate stops being a half mile apart. I would hate to have stops spaced a full mile apart, and here’s why:
If you live midway between stops, you now have to factor in about ten minutes to get to your stop, or you can just rely on the crappy local that runs every 30 minutes.
I’d prefer to make BRT as close to LRT as possible. We probably can’t create a dedicated busway, but we can still have low-floor artics with three-door boarding, off-board fare purchases, signal preemption, limited stops, and well-designed stations with shelters, benches, next arrival displays, the works.
Part of that should be MAX-like stop spacing … only at transfer points or places that will generate a lot of passengers, even if those stops are a mile or more apart. I see no reason there couldn’t be frequent (12 to 15 minute) local service during rush hour, and 20 to 30 minutes apart should be reasonable local service for the rest of the day.
I say just keep it on Division all the way from Portland to Gresham. It’s a lovely, straight shot that even a fool can grasp.
This makes sense to me except for one thing: it would require a new grade-separated crossing of the railroad line at 9th and Division. Otherwise the BRT would constantly be held up by long freight trains, and that gets rid of any advantages in either trip time or reliability. And a new crossing would significantly drive up capital costs.
If we are to improve transit on Powell, the current ROW width is inadequate for a fully-dedicated land for BRT (despite the helpful street width measurements). Express buses that skip stops may still travel as slow as local buses during peak traffic.
We are thus faced with either some expansion of Powell, or some other alternative. Expensive though it may be, having a fully-dedicated transit lane unaffected by traffic would look very appealing to potential riders.
There are parts of Powell that cannot be expanded. A good example is at 28th where the high school and Catholic Charities reside. BRT will not work here.
Here’s the most appealing (though exceedingly expensive) scenario to me: continue the MAX near its current PMLR stop near Rhine, over the train tracks, through the Fred Meyer parking lot, down Rhone, and then onto Powell where the ROW is feasible around 30th. Continue the MAX down Powell with this line connecting at 205 and traveling North to Gateway. BRT may work from 205 East. This certainly requires some land bought, but if we are to have a truly express route unaffected by traffic down this corridor, maybe it’s an option to consider.
If we are to improve transit on Powell, the current ROW width is inadequate for a fully-dedicated land for BRT (despite the helpful street width measurements). Express buses that skip stops may still travel as slow as local buses during peak traffic.
We are thus faced with either some expansion of Powell, or some other alternative. Expensive though it may be, having a fully-dedicated transit lane unaffected by traffic would look very appealing to potential riders.
There are parts of Powell that cannot be expanded. A good example is at 28th where the high school and Catholic Charities reside. BRT will not work here.
Here’s the most appealing (though exceedingly expensive) scenario to me: continue the MAX near its current PMLR stop near Rhine, over the train tracks, through the Fred Meyer parking lot, down Rhone, and then onto Powell where the ROW is feasible around 30th. Continue the MAX down Powell with this line connecting at 205 and traveling North to Gateway. BRT may work from 205 East. This certainly requires some land bought, but if we are to have a truly express route unaffected by traffic down this corridor, maybe it’s an option to consider.
Having thought a bit more about Andrew’s point of keeping it on Division …
As Scotty noted in his post:
The budge simply won’t allow for either significant ROW acquisition or major new structures, and given that Powell is a state highway (and an important one), it’s probably safe to assume that converting auto lanes to bus through lanes is out of the question.
But what about Division? Since it parallels Powell (a state highway), as well as Hawthorne out to about 50th, is there any reason Portland couldn’t give Division the Interstate Avenue treatment? Reduce it to a lane each way, with a busway in the middle and boarding at 26th, 39th, 55th, 70th, and 82nd? A central PCC station at 82nd would be pretty easy to do if there’s only a lane each way; Division is quite wide at that point.
If that’s a possibility, maybe it would be worth looking at an viaduct over the railroad tracks at 9th. At first glance, the only thing the line loses by moving off Powell is Cleveland High School.
If that’s a possibility, maybe it would be worth looking at an viaduct over the railroad tracks at 9th. At first glance, the only thing the line loses by moving off Powell is Cleveland High School.
The PMLR project originally included a new footbridge over the UPRR tracks, to replace the existing one at SE Brooklyn Street that is being demolished to make way for the light rail tracks–but was cut from the project a couple years back. Perhaps a new BRT/Bike/Ped/emergency crossing over the tracks, near the LRT station, might be an alternate? Given the length of trains that pass through, having another grade-separated crossing besides MLK/Grand and the Powell undercrossing, would be useful.
Of course, Division Street is pretty narrow in spots–generally having a configuration of either four travel lanes, or two travel lanes and two parking lanes (with the occasional turn refuge) pretty much all the way out to 79th. As someone noted above, the stretch between 60th and 79th will be converted from 2 travel lanes in each direction, to one travel lane and one bike lane in each direction, plus a continuous center turning refuge/median. How a dedicated busway would fit onto this stretch of Division, I have no idea.
What is the problem we are trying to solve here?
I’d suggest we drop the BRT name as it really does not apply here. Rather something like “Enhanced Frequent Service” or “Express Frequent Service.”
And rather than trying to save a few minutes, I would look to increase frequencies…getting EFS buses to 10 minutes most of the day, etc. Wouldn’t you rather have a shorter wait and a bit longer ride over the opposite?
It would be interesting see the On/Off data to know who rides the 9 and 4, and their O & D. Who would this EFS serve…people who live this side of 82nd (NO); the other side (Maybe) or beyond the pale? Why would we do that?
Last, beyond 52nd or so Powell has plenty of ROW where ODOT put in parking after Mt Hood freeway was killed. Or head out Foster…four lanes in desparate need of a diet. That leaves a relatively short distance from SE 17th to SE 52nd, which is probably 3/4 parking lots anyway. An innovative transit project could spark a transformation of SE Powell Bloulevard (sic).
I guess METRO can’t simply make a fiat decision to improve bus service through this corridor, based upon present population concentrations. Which could be adjusted in the future with new development, also by fiat decision.
No it is has to turn into a Kum-Ba-Ya moment with Portlandians making pilgrimage to the pagoda of public involvement, with the required obeisance to the correct political values. Long lasting public hearings here we come!
I’d like to know why TriMet is focusing on Portland-Gresham, which already has MAX, instead of rolling this out on Barbur and McLoughlin – and call them the “W” and “E” lines (get it: the routes would be on 99W and 99E).
I agree that Powell also is deserving of such a route…but neither Tigard or Sherwood, nor Oregon City and Gladstone have any enhanced transit whatsoever, save for the 94X and 99X bus lines. Following a conversion of the 12/94 and 33/99 lines, the next logical route would be the 57 (since Forest Grove and Cornelius don’t have light rail either)…THEN the 4 and 9 routes, and possibly the 77 route as well, then the 72 line and possibly the 76 line (which TriMet promised would be Frequent Service when WES opened, but broke that promise rather quickly).
Inner Division simply is not an option for anything approaching BRT. It is a narrow road that is only two lanes out to about 60th, then will be 3 lanes until 80th after the upcoming road diet, and only after that does it widen out.
Not only is it too narrow, as others have noted there are pesky freight railroad tracks in between Division and the new transit bridge. That transit-only bridge is the biggest asset we have for this BRT line, since it will allow buses to skip all the congestion crossing the other bridges. While long-term I would love to see a grade-separated crossing of the railroad tracks (or put the tracks in a tunnel like Seattle has), it is not going to happen anytime soon.
BRT needs to go on Powell, and needs good treatments to get through the worst part from 39th to 9th, where it will then cut over to the exclusive busway and across the new bridge. There is already a queue jump at Milwaukie Ave, by the way, so we’ve already started down that road.
Does US 26 have to go out Powell? Why couldn’t ODOT reroute it down 99E to the Milwaukie Expressway and then out the new Sunrise hiway to the current US 26.
Turn Powell over to the cities and let it be reformed into a real urban avenue. Interstate Avenue is looking better and better with its makeover, but still along way to go.
Does US 26 have to go out Powell? Why couldn’t ODOT reroute it down 99E to the Milwaukie Expressway and then out the new Sunrise hiway to the current US 26.
There are long term plans to eventually run the Sunrise Corridor out to US26 north of Boring somewhere. But the only part of the corridor that’s planned is a freeway out to Rock Creek Junction (where 212 and 224 split off) west of Damascus; and the only part that’s funded and underway is a two-lane extension of OR224 around Camp Whitycombe. OR212 can’t handle the traffic loads of rerouting freight along this corridor.
Powell is already 2 lanes east of 205, would rerouting onto 212 really be that much different?
Why couldn’t ODOT reroute it down 99E to the Milwaukie Expressway and then out the new Sunrise hiway to the current US 26.
This is something I’ve been proposing for the past couple of years. If Powell retains any kind of designation, let it be Business 26.
There are long term plans to eventually run the Sunrise Corridor out to US26 north of Boring somewhere. But the only part of the corridor that’s planned is a freeway out to Rock Creek Junction (where 212 and 224 split off) west of Damascus; and the only part that’s funded and underway is a two-lane extension of OR224 around Camp Whitycombe.
Ultimately, all that might be required is a four-lane parkway or expressway between 205 and Boring Jct, especially now that Damascus won’t be densifying as previously predicted.
As for the topic at hand, the proposed Powell/Division corridor wouldn’t be true BRT unless it has its own right-of-way, which in the current climate would be prohibitively expensive. However, there are a few segments where a separate ROW would be worth the investment… I’m thinking specifically of a grade-separated crossing of the notoriously congested 82nd/Powell interchange.
The rapid bus line can run on Division between Gresham and 205, and then transition to Powell all the way to the new Willamette River bridge, with a local bus line serving the remaining Division/Powell segments.
Just changing the designation of a road doesn’t change who will take it. All this talk of changing the designation of Powell seems silly to me – most people longer trips are already considering those options
Changing a designation can be accompanied by a change in jurisdiction. If Powell became a city street and/or county road, there would be one less agency’s requirements to deal with when planning a transit-way.
Just changing the designation of a road doesn’t change who will take it. All this talk of changing the designation of Powell seems silly to me – most people longer trips are already considering those options
Agree to a point, but it still cracks me up to see the signs in the vicinity of Ross Island Br and on 205 south directing Mt Hood bound travelers to Powell.
Powell has a fraction of the development and ridership that Division has. However, neither street has enough ROW for transit lanes or LR. And as stated above, there is no budget for ROW acquisition.
So… this is then dead in the water as a proposal. We are left with “improved bus service,” which would be nice, as normal bus service has been cut over the past few years on these lines, no?
I think the only thing that would substantially function as HCT would be to dig a subway tunnel for MAX under Division. Preferably a bored tunnel to avoid surface disruption. And if you’re going to do that, you might as well make it an automated train ala the Canada Line in Vancouver. Probably cost what, $3-4 billion?
I agree about the calling it BRT thing.
Just upgrade the bus service on both Powell and Division with pullouts at stops and improved shelters. Make payments a breeze.
Also, get new buses that are actually nice.
London’s bus system is awesome and people have no problems with taking the bus. Its because the buses are nice, they have frequent service, and they complement the rapid transit routes.
Port lands bus system is pretty unremarkable. Upgrade it, starting on Division and it will be a success.
My take. Spend the money and make Powell from Brooklyn Station to I-205 LRT. Why? There is demand and the Powell Corridor is considered a HCT corridor. Most expensive section will be from 17th to 52nd. (tunneling, elevated, land purchases?). 52nd to I-205 have many plots under City/State ownership so these assets should be used for transportation improvements. Move the Green Line to Powell. Use the Powell to Gateway I-205 LRT for Clackamas to PDX service for now. PCC at Division and Warner Pacific need better service via more bus service later in the evenings (M-F). Spend the BRT money (lite) on Division and Powell from I-205 to Gresham (better buses, better ticketing, better signal priority for buses, etc.). There is no money to widen these corridors out to Gresham. Traffic is bad on these corridors AM and PM. You will not get two lanes away from general traffic on Division. There is great demand (many apartments and renters) on the two main bus lines (4 and 9). Inter Division St. is a non-starter for good BRT or LRT (too narrow of a corridor). Fifty years from now lets talk streetcar on Division OK?
Inter SE Powell needs LRT and outer Powell is already planned for improvements (state highway, three lanes only, lots of dividers for smoother 35MPH speeds, less turns on and off Powell east of I-205 is the current plan).
Inter and Outer SE is a wasteland because of the lack of investments by the City/County/State so lets acknowledge this and correct the past mistakes.
Ray
“By contrast, precision-platform bus systems ”
There aren’t any. You want precision platforming, you need to put your vehicle on rails.
This is one of the “bait and switch” problems with “BRT”.
I have nothing against bus lanes; bus lanes are great. Bus bulbs, also good. Good bus shelters, lovely. Limited-stop buses, excellent. Low-floor kneeling buses, de rigeur!
Does any of this make “bus rapid transit”? No. Bus transit is not rapid.
As “not that guys dad” said:
“London’s bus system is awesome and people have no problems with taking the bus. Its because the buses are nice, they have frequent service, and they complement the rapid transit routes.”
And nobody calls it BRT… but they have (extremely heavily enforced) bus lanes all over the place, “congestion charging” on most of the roads too narrow for bus lanes (this means the road is two lanes or one lane, with no parking!), extremely comprehensive information at bus stops, etc.
Another successful example is LA’s “Metro Rapid”. Again, it doesn’t pretend to be the mystical “BRT” (unlike LA’s “Orange Lie”). It’s just plain high-quality bus service.
“By contrast, precision-platform bus systems ”
Nathanael: There aren’t any. You want precision platforming, you need to put your vehicle on rails.
There are various ways to permit precision mating of a bus to a platform, including guided busways as well as computer-controlled guidance systems. These things are expensive, and require specialized equipment be installed on the bus, but they do exist and do work.
With all the discussion of the fragility of the MAX system, it strikes me that a Powell Avenue MAX would at a single stroke provide redundant service to everything east of the Willamette.
@Nathanael,
It wouldn’t be enough “redundancy” to make much difference to the riders affected by a major MAX interruption. It’s just going to be ten minute BRT at best. MAX runs two car trains, each of which holds about three times what a BRT bus can carry, every five minutes.
So in any given ten minute period one has six times the capacity on MAX that one will have on the BRT line.
That’s not redundancy; it’s just a parallel bus route, slightly more enticing than the current alternatives.
And of course it doesn’t really provide an alternative for anyone north of Powell.
What about MAKING ALL TRANSIT SERVICE IN THE METRO AREA FREE so you dont have to worry about fares