Shaping Up the Southwest Corridor DEIS

The project staff have released their recommendations for what should and shouldn’t be studied in the DEIS (PDF, 17M).

75 Comments

75 Responses to Shaping Up the Southwest Corridor DEIS

  1. Allan
    May 7, 2014 at 8:42 pm Link

    Link isn’t working

  2. Anandakos
    May 8, 2014 at 7:32 am Link

    Why does this study continue into Washington County? Both Tualatin and Tigard are dead set against “high capacity transit” within their boundaries if it means the drivers’ team has to give up ANYTHING.

    Any version of the loop-the-loop through Tigard is just plain dumb, even the “A” alignment via Clinton. The road system down there is terrible; why blow bus hours wandering around in it? The gentry doesn’t want to ride buses anyway.

    Just end the service west of PCC by the I-5/SR 99 interchange and provide direct “Open BRT” POBS connections from there to Tigard, Tualatin and Lake Oswego via Kruse. Just use the 76 to connect the two TC’s as it does today.

    This would save money to pay for a tunnel, even for BRT, under OHSU which is a much more important regional destination than anywhere else in this pure suburbia corridor. And it would keep the yahoos in the Twin T-s happy.

    • EngineerScotty
      May 8, 2014 at 10:00 am Link

      There are people in southern Washington County who do use TriMet, and Tualatin in particular could benefit from improved service.

      And a key concern: Would a project just to Barbur TC or PCC or Washington Square be viable–either as a complete project or as a Phase 1? (So far, phasing has not been considered, but it becomes a key issue once a project enters the DEIS stage).

      • Anandakos
        May 8, 2014 at 1:26 pm Link

        Scotty,

        Of course there are transit users in the Twin-T’s and they deserve good service. But they’re both the sort of communities which are politically dominated by drivers’ team voters — and yes they are definitely a team which protects its privileges. The road system is horrible and they will, rightly, say “there is no room for transit priority”.

        So, if there’s no room for priority treatments, why call it “BRT” and disappoint everyone. Just end the explicit service where the opportunity for priority ends and have “Open BRT” extensions on the street rights of way: “POBS”.

        Trying to tie the Tualatin TC, the Tigard TC, and PCC Sylvania on one string of pearls leads to a broken-elbow route that will irritate all the riders. A genuine HCT BRT facility — in the CENTER of Barbur, not some stupid “business access transit” facility with people turning right in front of the buses — fanning out separately to each destination makes more sense, at least to me.

      • Anandakos
        May 8, 2014 at 1:38 pm Link

        Oh, and if we’re talking about viability, is Milwaukie MAX “viable”. “Downtown” Milwaukie is cute but nobody lives there, at least not yet. Half the route is squeezed between a semi-freeway and a railroad line; there is essentially no walkshed between Fifteenth and downtown Milwaukie.

        So the ridership is predicated on the assumption that folks who now ride the three routes to Oregon City will be happy to transfer at Park Avenue. Maybe they will; maybe they won’t. I hope they are willing.

        Since the fix is in for BRT in the Southwest Corridor — and it probably should be; there’s no more “there” down that way than along the Yellow Line south of Fifteenth — doesn’t it make sense to use the facility more in a “busway” model than trying to confect some sort of LRT-lite system in a corridor in which almost nobody lives alongside a stonking big freeway?

        • Anandakos
          May 9, 2014 at 4:45 pm Link

          I should have said “Orange Line” and “Seventeenth”. Disculpe me.

  3. Lenny Anderson
    May 8, 2014 at 5:05 pm Link

    Looks like, overall, we will see Barbur Blvd. “re-purposed,” which is what has been successfully done with N. Interstate Avenue.
    Running the MAX Green Line to the two “T” seems fitting; detractors can ride from one end to the other without a transfer!

  4. joe
    May 9, 2014 at 9:28 am Link

    Barbur Blvd 99w, I wonder what the Tigard residents will think that bought the story the mayor & city council recently told them the plan didn’t include 99W in order to win support to stop 34-210?? We all know what to expect from politicians, especially when so many Federal dollars are at play & their special interests desire to pocket them but those who opposed the measure allowing them the final say on what we want if anything in Tigard should feel very naïve after hearing this.

    Tigard isn’t Milwaukie, we see what it is doing to their community we won’t let it happen to ours. North Interstate Avenue is a success REALLY, by what means have you decided it a success??

    • EngineerScotty
      May 9, 2014 at 10:07 am Link

      Joe,

      The proposed SWC alignment follows Barbur Boulevard from downtown to Barbur TC/PCC (with one option going as far as the 99W/I-5 interchange), but does not follow 99W through Tigard. Instead, it goes south into the Triangle, then west across 217 into downtown Tigard and Tigard TC, then loops around and heads towards Bridgeport Village and Tualatin,

      Given that Pacific Highway (99W) through Tigard remains an active state highway, as opposed to a former highway now replaced by a freeway (i.e. Interstate Avenue), putting mass transit on that section of 99W was probably a non-starter.

      At any rate–what is “happening” to Milwaukie, other than a new light rail line through its downtown? There were already trains there, and downtown Milwaukie is already fairly developed, so opportunities for upzoning are limited. You seem to have MAX confused with Mad Max…

    • Chris I
      May 10, 2014 at 11:15 am Link

      Maybe you can enlighten us as to what is happening down in Milwaukie? I’ve lived here for about 30 years, and I haven’t seen much of a change.

  5. Lenny Anderson
    May 9, 2014 at 10:20 am Link

    N. Interstate Avenue: better (i.e more reliable and higher capacity) transit, more trees, more businesses, more housing, higher property values, safer right of way for all modes.
    Sounds like success to me.

  6. eric cantona
    May 9, 2014 at 11:54 am Link

    can someone tell me why every option has to pass through the Tigard Triangle area? it is currently a pretty low density employment area, and it has some very inflexible FAR limits in place last time I worked on a project there. would HCT allow for higher FAR in the area? if not it really seems silly spend the money to service that area.

  7. Lenny Anderson
    May 9, 2014 at 1:40 pm Link

    Tigard definitely looks like its out of the way for this line. Kruse Woods, which Metro continues to ignore, would be a better destination. Extend the Red Line down to Tigard someday when demand warrants.

    • Erik H.
      May 17, 2014 at 8:41 am Link

      What is with your repeated hatred with Tigard, Lenny? It’s bordering on childish. There’s nearly 50,000 residents in Tigard.

      Kruse Woods is a sleepy office park that is all but deserted on evenings and weekends, and is far more “sprawling” and dispersed than many places in Tigard. Heck – TriMet manages to provide it with just one rush-hour only bus (the 38).

      And your suggestion to push the Red Line into Tigard…is reminiscent of the days when I could board a 12 bus and have a one-seat ride all the way to PDX, even in the wee-early morning hours. Today I cannot take TriMet for a 7:00 AM flight out of town, and it requires up to three transfers if my timing doesn’t match TriMet’s timing.

  8. joe
    May 9, 2014 at 2:33 pm Link

    Fortunately Scotty light rail will not be going through Tigard without VOTER APPROVAL!

    Milwaukie can’t afford the light rail that was forced upon them, nothing new just them dealing with the consequences of former commissioners who put their will before those they were elected to represent. http://portlandtribune.com/cr/24-news/135181-milwaukie-braces-for-cuts-to-pay-for-light-rail

    Lenny,

    No one can drive the length the Interstate and find the success in which you claim.

    It is a dead zone with even gentrification being deterred by the light rail obstruction. I don’t even but that it has better transit given the reduction in wider community serving bus transit.

    The few new housing units are subsidized mixed use bunkers with the ground floor retail vacant.

    Other than the unrelated Fred Meyer and New Seasons the only new businesses are a couple non profits.
    .
    North Interstate Blvd was ruined. It will flounder for decades while you pretend otherwise.

    The downtown transit mall is another blunder. Same for the MAX Green Line which has not spurred anything.

    Now we have the SW Corridor light rail being planned the same way. It will be crammed on a Blvd and between a freeway and the blvd for most of it’s path resulting in the same money pit stagnation problems elsewhere.

    I challenge you to provide any success addresses on N. Interstate.

    Thanks
    Joe

    • Anandakos
      May 9, 2014 at 8:02 pm Link

      Joe,

      You apparently don’t like the mid-rise buildings going up along Interstate; you live in Tualatin it seems so it stands to reason. But there are people who do like them. You should take a look at this month’s American Prospect. Even if you find the politics revolting, and given your comments, I’m confident you will, you will find that young people of all ethnicities are flocking to the cities. They’re tired of the ‘burbs. They’re sick of mommy and daddy drinking themselves senseless in front the TV out of boredom. They’re sick have having to be driven everywhere by mommy or the maid. They’re sick of mommy and daddy screwing the neighbors for a little thrill.

      The kids want to have a real life with interesting people of varied backgrounds.

      And since many of them can’t yet afford The Pearl or even more emphatically, SoWa, Interstate is very attractive. Those plain-jane five story apartments and condos are filling up rapidly and the retail will follow on those ground floors.

      Go ahead and live your smug suburban life; nobody is saying you can’t. But why are suburbanites so damn envious of people who make a different choice? Control freaks.

    • Chris I
      May 10, 2014 at 11:19 am Link

      You are either blind, or intentionally lying to us and everyone else. Hundreds of new units have been added along Interstate in the past few years. Please pay better attention when you are driving through my city, or stay in your suburban enclave.

      • Chris Smith
        May 10, 2014 at 11:24 am Link

        I’m sure you could find a way to provide that information without being so personally aggressive toward another commenter.

        • Nick theoldurbanist
          May 10, 2014 at 5:17 pm Link

          Agreed.

        • Nathanael
          May 13, 2014 at 7:48 pm Link

          Um, Chris I was WAAAY more polite than Anandakos. I think both comments were fair, but it’s a little weird seeing the civility police coming down on Chris and not on Anandakos.

  9. Lenny Anderson
    May 9, 2014 at 7:37 pm Link

    Never heard of N. Interstate “Blvd.” The Avenue by that name shines…someone must have made a wrong turn. I guess some people love the look and feel of 82nd Avenue; not me.

  10. joe
    May 11, 2014 at 3:39 pm Link

    That’s not much of a reply from all of you.

    I expected more specific responses to the Interstate topic and how it relates to SW??

    There is no question Interstate has been stagnant. Even adjacent streets like Williams, Albina and Vancouver have performed better. Please enlighten me how I am wrong?

    I’ll repeat, light rail deters private investment and North Interstate has been ruined. Like east Burnside was many years earlier.

    The mixed use ground floor retail along MAX is what it is. Dead. It’s like that everywhere MAX tracks go. No hope or hype will make any difference.

    I don’t think that is smug to acknowledge.

    How does one even dream up that it is being “envious of people who make a different choice? Politicains & those who PROFIT from lightrail do not want the Tigard/Tualatin residents to have a choice!!!

    Huh?

    The reason I mentioned Interstate and the few mixed use buildings is obvious. The same FAILED plan is advancing in the SW Corridor for Barbur.

    The tirade about the burbs, mommy, daddy and drinking is a silly distraction.

    Chris I, why are you so offended? The few mixed use bunkers on Interstate were all heavily tax subsidized. There may be 4 of them.

    Drive the full length. That is not a success story or an attraction.

    I’m happy staying in my city. I just don’t want your city’s lousy plans for mine!

    Stop pushing Portland’s ruinous agenda on the region and we’re good. here is a article you may find interesting Portland spending your money on a lightrail study that will never happen if left to a vote of the residents in Tigard.

    http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/04/commissioner_steve_novick_defe.html

    Having said all of that all we want is a public vote on our own destiny. You seem to object because voters here will reject your plans for our community?

    And some of you get all offended at being challenged.
    Thanks
    Joe

  11. joe
    May 11, 2014 at 3:44 pm Link

    Engineer Scotty, why was a tunnel not proposed rather then a bridge for lightrail to get across the Columbia?

    I find it amazing politicians & our governor think advocating a bridge with a lightrail train was more important then getting people across the river or high enough to get ships under?? Then again we live in Oregon.

    Thanks
    Joe

    • EngineerScotty
      May 11, 2014 at 8:04 pm Link

      Tunnels were suggested, Joe. No tunnel proposals made the cut for two reasons:

      1) The Columbia is deep enough that a tunnel would be fairly expensive to dig, and the portals would need to be cited well back of the river.

      2) The project “purpose and need” statement essentially excluded the tunnel (and a whole lot of other sensible ideas). (It essentially excluded any solution other than a megabridge with everything on it). Thus this is what the DEIS studied, and what got approved by the feds.

      And while I didn’t approve of the CRC as proposed, your observation can be flipped around, to wit: “I find it amazing that politicians and the Washington Senate think that keeping light rail out of Clark County is more important then getting people across the river”. Keep in mind, the CRC wasn’t killed by environmentalists who demanded light rail or fewer freeway lanes (many greens tried, but they lost the political battle here in Oregon). The CRC was killed by conservatives in Washington, who basically decided and declared that no-build was preferable to any project that included rail, and used their slim majority in the state Senate to enforce that demand. And so, the bridge is (for now, at least) dead.

      • Erik H.
        May 17, 2014 at 8:43 am Link

        The Columbia is deep enough? Deeper than San Francisco Bay? (Transbay Tunnel) Deeper than the English Channel? Deeper than the Hudson River?

  12. Joe
    May 12, 2014 at 1:07 am Link

    Scotty, we were going to pay 3 companies to move up river 80 plus million dollars because a train on a bridge to Oregon politicians was more important then a bridge high enough to continue to allow ship traffic commerce or one to replace the existing bridge!

    How can you not see the flawed logic here that the goal was to replace the existing bridge and putting lightrail and all the accommodations that go with it are what killed the crc??? If it is purely a ideological indifference the Democrat party is soon to be lost as all the democrats I know see this much like the 250 million Kitzhaber wasted on a website. Perhaps there are still enough low information public union driven democrat voters to re-elect him again but to blame rather then applaud Washington state conservatives just makes them look more agreeable to informed voters.

    The people of Clark county voted they want lightrail or did the politicians in Clark county say they wanted lightrail? There is a difference between a public vote and politicians. Especially when there is time to educate the public on the issue.

    It seems the fed has endless amounts of money for lightrail why not just build a tunnel

    • EngineerScotty
      May 12, 2014 at 8:39 am Link

      Oh, I agree completely that the proposed CRC design was flawed and stupid, and have remarked many times on this here blog to that effect.

      The problem with the CRC is that it tried to give everyone what they wanted, but what many activists wanted most was to NOT have what the other guy wanted. What Portland environmentalists wanted wasn’t light rail (Portland lefties probably don’t care much about taking MAX to the Couv), what they wanted was No Extra Freeway Capacity. And what Clark County conservatives wanted most of all was No Tolls and No Light Rail.

      Most of the alternate proposals that have any traction, accommodate one side or the other, but ignore completely the other side. The so-called Common Sense Alternative, which I think is a fine idea, offers nothing to motorists in Battle Ground who are insistent upon driving to work–there’s no reason for Clark County voters who dislike light rail, to like it. And the various “just build a stinking freeway” proposals that come from the Vancouver side (including the various third bridge proposals, either near Vancouver Lake/Forest Park/Sauvie Island, or out by Fischers Landing east of I-205) likewise are not mindful of the politics in Portland.

      If your read of the politics is true, it should be no problem for anti-transit supporters to elect GOP legislatures in Salem and Olympia, replace Kitz with a Republican, and shove a transit-free bridge down Portland’s throat, overriding local objections by force if necessary. Kitz may be in trouble due to Cover Oregon, but he’s also in trouble because he has pissed off his liberal base by supporting the bridge (I know many, many liberals who despise the GOP, but want to see new Democratic blood in Salem, and view an electoral defeat for Kitzhaber as a necessary step). A GOP takeover of the state Legislature seems unlikely, however. (One consequence of vote-by-mail is that Oregon’s liberals, unlike their counterparts nationwide, do get out and vote in midterm elections).

      • Nathanael
        May 13, 2014 at 7:51 pm Link

        The Common Sense Alternative backers will probably succeed at getting the local bridge to Hayden Island built — after all, Washington state has no say in that.

        Once Hayden Island has a local bridge, the justifications for megafreeway construction mostly evaporate.

        • Anandakos
          May 13, 2014 at 10:51 pm Link

          Nathanael,

          The CSA crosses the river. Washington State certainly has a say in getting it built, because it will require money at the very least from Clark County.

          • EngineerScotty
            May 13, 2014 at 11:08 pm Link

            The full CSA proposal includes crossings to Washington, but there’s no reason that a partial CSA, including a local bridge to Hayden Island, can’t be built.

            One of the major objections to a local Hayden Island connection is access to Jantzen Beach Supercenter–the mall (and the businesses therein) insist upon having direct freeway access, with which they claim they won’t survive. Which brings to mind an obvious question: This is a horrible place for a mall, and actually a quite good place for residential real state. It would be far cheaper to buy the place up, and convert it into mixed-use, than it would be to build that concrete jungle that was proposed for the CRC.

            There is, after all, a perfectly good shopping mall just across the freeway from the Delta Park MAX station.

  13. Joe
    May 12, 2014 at 12:53 pm Link

    Thanks Scotty in a perfect world we would abolish political parties and elect candidates on merit rather then the political party they supposedly identify with. I won’t rule Kitzhaber out remember the millions he wasted on DMV and Democrats still elected him.

    Half my family are Democrats because of one or two issues and tired stereotypes of Republicans. 1700 Democrats signed our petition many put up signs and voted to pass it though all the democrat politicians opposed it & propogandized it as a right wing conspiracy. There is some hope we do not have to be carbon copies of each other to agree to the dislike of those who control the two parties and the special interests that motivate them.

    Mayors and city council members can be replaced and if the behavior that went on in Tigard continues it is a strong possibility. No one likes a politician and unfortunately for folks like me they seem to be the only characters that run for office.

    Thanks
    Joe

    • Anandakos
      May 12, 2014 at 3:57 pm Link

      “One who runs for office” = “politician”. What you mean is “it’s a shame nobody gets elected that I [e.g. you] like.”

      And just to amplify Scotty’s point, there are more than a few of us here in Vancouver who are in the “No Extra Freeway Capacity” camp, too. We don’t want our lovely rural county paved to house more selfish, narcissistic “refugees” from Orange County.

      So far as the parallel streets go, yes Albina/Mississippi has significantly gentrified, but I don’t see much change on the Vancouver/Williams couplet. There are a few new businesses in the five blocks north of the hospital but the rest of it is as it always has been, just SFH. I think that main difference is that Vancouver/Williams, and Interstate are still auto-oriented “through” routes, whereas Albina/Mississippi has had traffic calming amendments that have made it walkable. Voila business!

  14. joe
    May 12, 2014 at 9:50 pm Link

    Anadakos, I sat in a living room with Tigards new mayor John Cook who said he supported the Tigard residents right to vote on lightrail when he was running against an antivote pro lightrail opponent. I donated $200 to his campaign & knocked on hundreds of doors telling Tigard residents John Cook supported their right to vote on whether they wanted lightrail or not to find him later being one of the greatest opponents to our measure.

    I liked Mr Cook “Mayor Cook” just fine until he made himself & me out to be a liar to those who knew he ran as the pro vote candidate. This is an example of what I mean by politicians seem to be the only ones interested in running for office.

    You don’t want your county paved for roads & I don’t want our roads congested by wires , rails & inefficient expensive trains. But here you are advocating against what we want for the Tualatin Tigard community??

    Here is a statement I take issue with that Scotty made.

    “If your read of the politics is true, it should be no problem for anti-transit supporters to elect GOP legislatures in Salem and Olympia, replace Kitz with a Republican, and shove a transit-free bridge down Portland’s throat, overriding local objections by force if necessary. ”

    For the record I have yet to come across anyone who is anti-transit. That label is regularly used to falsely discredit light rail opponents. It’s interesting that he would use the “shove a transit free bridge down Portland’s throat, overriding objections by force if necessary” expression.

    First, there is no such thing as as transit-free bridge. Every bridge I know of accommodates bus transit.

    Second, every local light rail opposing effort I have seen calls for a public vote. So I have to presume these people would be in favor of a regional vote even if they had the legislature. There would be no shoving by force against objections.

    That is the tactic of the light rail cartel/establishment underway to push forward the SW Corridor Light Rail. Just as they did previous MAX lines with full awareness of the public opposition.

    The votes in King City, Tigard and Tualatin will hopefully prevent the shoving by force against the public will. The Tualatin petitioner has made it clear what they are after. Better transit for less money.

    It may just be time to remove some politicians, but not through labels or a campaign of lies like the Stop Congestion Pact that attempted to undermine Tigard residents right to vote, but an honest conversation with our neighbors as to why Portland wants a lightrail through Tigard so badly it will use its own taxpayers money to continue more studies for what they should all know we will vote down.
    Thanks
    Joe

    • EngineerScotty
      May 12, 2014 at 10:48 pm Link

      For the record I have yet to come across anyone who is anti-transit.

      Perhaps you haven’t, but I’ve encountered many.

      That label is regularly used to falsely discredit light rail opponents. It’s interesting that he would use the “shove a transit free bridge down Portland’s throat, overriding objections by force if necessary” expression.

      First, there is no such thing as as transit-free bridge. Every bridge I know of accommodates bus transit.

      Point taken–I’ll amend my statement to say mass-transit-free bridge. (Though the current Sellwood Bridge doesn’t accommodate bus transit–at least not TriMet’s fleet–although that’s due to weight limits, not due to any political decision).

      Second, every local light rail opposing effort I have seen calls for a public vote. So I have to presume these people would be in favor of a regional vote even if they had the legislature. There would be no shoving by force against objections.

      And just for the record–I don’t doubt for a minute that the cities of Tigard and Tualatin have a right to do so–in fact, I wrote a while back that it’s better they do this early, then try to do what was attempted (and failed) in Clackamas County, to kill off PMLR at the eleventh hour.

      That said, there are plenty of examples of legislatures in red states interfering with–including outright cancelling, or legally prohibiting–transit projects that are desired by cities in those states. Just recently in Nashville, the state legislature reacted to a proposed BRT project by essentially banning center-running BRT (the most effective kind).

      That is the tactic of the light rail cartel/establishment underway to push forward the SW Corridor Light Rail. Just as they did previous MAX lines with full awareness of the public opposition.

      Who is the “light rail cartel”, anyway? Reading the tea leaves, TriMet seems to prefer BRT–it’s the city of Portland that is pushing light rail. And keep in mind–there have been TWO measures in Tigard. The first one, passed about two years ago, was similar to the Clackamas County measure (though more sensibly drafted), and required a public vote for rail transit projects. When it became clear that the region was giving serious consideration to bus rapid transit–along comes the second measure, making it clear that BRT (specifically exclusive-lane BRT) is also not desired.

      The votes in King City, Tigard and Tualatin will hopefully prevent the shoving by force against the public will. The Tualatin petitioner has made it clear what they are after. Better transit for less money.

      Except I don’t see any agitation for “better transit” coming from either place. I see plenty of calls to widen 99W, or I-5, and lots of money being spent on road improvement projects. (And everyone seems to agree that the I-5/99W connector should be built, it’s just nobody wants it in their backyard). But I don’t see any attempt to raise money (or petition the state legislature to do so) to increase service hours in Tigard-Tualatin.

      If you want “better transit”, you either need to a) put more busses on the roads, so that more areas have coverage and wait times are less, or b) invest in moderate distributed capital improvements to making existing bus service more efficient and reliable, so that greater coverage can be provided with the same fleet and driver hours, or c) invest in rapid-transit trunk lines, which once built are cheaper to run and highly effective, allowing service hours to redeployed on better local service.

      Now, if you ask me, I think the region could stand do to a lot more of b). a) represents an ongoing liability that the Feds won’t help with, and c) seems to be the tool of choice planners go for. But reading the website of the Tualatin petitioners, it’s pretty clear that their primary concern isn’t improving transit service (or at least keeping it at current levels); it’s preserving the existing low-density, auto-friendly suburban fabric by keeping the camel’s nose far away from the tent.

      • Erik H.
        May 17, 2014 at 8:49 am Link

        “If you want “better transit”, you either need to a) put more busses on the roads, so that more areas have coverage and wait times are less, or b) invest in moderate distributed capital improvements to making existing bus service more efficient and reliable, so that greater coverage can be provided with the same fleet and driver hours, or c) invest in rapid-transit trunk lines, which once built are cheaper to run and highly effective, allowing service hours to redeployed on better local service.”

        Not necessarily.

        Most of Tigard is covered very poorly by service, thanks to TriMet’s Portland-centric bus model. And thanks to TriMet’s recent service cuts, you can’t even get from King City to Fred Meyer effectively. Now you have to know multiple bus schedules, when it used to be very simple (and simple = more riders).

        Tigard could easily form a community transit system (which judging from the views at most community transit meetings, is WILDLY overdue) that is hubbed right at the Tigard TC. Even though transfers would be needed, they would be timed so that all buses would show up, and within 5-10 minutes all buses would leave. Cherriots works on this model at the Courthouse Square transit mall, and I believe even LTD does in downtown Eugene.

        Tigard’s transit would use smaller buses that would be more suitable to running on neighborhood streets – 30 foot or smaller buses, except for the buses serving 99W and Hall which would continue to use the larger 40′ buses. Meanwhile, a commuter bus would run from Tigard TC to downtown Portland (non-stop) replacing the current 94 service.

        At the same time, Tigard would prioritize bus stop improvements (something TriMet has cut in favor of building light rail) which fits within the city’s current goal of being the “most walkable city” and its current pedestrian projects, by tying pedestrian and transit projects together. So you get more bang for your buck, instead of the city and TriMet not working together which has been the case for the last ten or more years.

    • Anandakos
      May 13, 2014 at 12:13 am Link

      Actually, Joe, if you’ll read upthread and other posts on the topic in other base posts, I specifically have said several times I think the Southwest Corridor project, be it LRT or BRT, should terminate at the county line west of PCC. Tigard and Tualatin TC’s would be connected to it by surface running buses.

      If BRT is selected as the preferred alternative for the trunk section, those local, surface-running buses could continue on the busway as “Open BRT”. That’s a little sub-optimal for the users of the corridor north of there in the “inbound” direction because the problems of bus-bunching and delays from traffic would affect the headways. But it would be an option.

      If LRT were the chosen mode for the trunk line then obviously folks would have to transfer between the trunk and the local, street-running buses at the end of the corridor. Whether they would or not is an “open” question. I’m concerned about Milwaukie MAX for just that reason and have said so.

      If you don’t want any kind of transit priority in your city, then Tri-Met should honor your wishes. I think it’s shortsighted, but I like democracy. People deserve to get the government for which they vote, Even when they’re limiting their futures.

    • Nathanael
      May 13, 2014 at 7:55 pm Link

      The state legislative attacks on rail in Indianapolis (a ban on spending Indianapolis’s own money on its own rail!) and Ohio (more complicated, but going to great efforts to kill locally supported, local rail projects in at least three cities) are other examples to add to the Tennessee example given by Engineer Scotty.

      This is anti-transit.

  15. dan w
    May 12, 2014 at 11:49 pm Link

    And everyone seems to agree that the I-5/99W connector should be built, it’s just nobody wants it in their backyard.

    Which has, if I’ve heard correctly, apparently driven a stake through the heart of the connector project.

    • EngineerScotty
      May 13, 2014 at 10:45 am Link

      Funny how that works….but yes, you’re right.

  16. joe
    May 13, 2014 at 2:52 pm Link

    EngineerScotty,

    Sorry but I suspect you have grown too accustomed to mis-characterizing rail opponents as anti-transit. It is a term I have heard often from other pro light rail advocates.,

    You claim to have encountered many? Then you should be able to point to any number of sites where you’ve encountered their anti-transit rhetoric? No one who signed our petition or voted for our measure were anti transit, most just hate the idea of light rail & all that comes with it being ran through our towns.

    You’re also struggling to cling to your transit-free-bridge label. Revising it to mass-transit-free is equally inaccurate. TriMet and C-Tran bus service is certainly mass transit.

    Portland politicians are not willing to accept a rail-transit-free bridge.

    The current Sellwood Bridge limitations are absolutely due to political decisions. The many years of political decisions to defer and neglect maintenance (and replacement) in favor of other appropriations is what caused the weight limitation.

    Yes it is good that SW cities are taking on light rail early. However, you’re forgetting how Clackamas County (and the region) also took on light rail early only to have the Cartel bring it back around against known public opposition. I also believe the eleventh hour battle was an attempt to truncate PMLR at Tacoma.

    Which is what should have been done. I’ve heard it is a real messed project south of there with Milwaukie now forced to vote to pay for it or lose city services.

    The “light rail cartel” was in full display on Orestar etc in opposition to the Tigard vote.

    You need new tea leaves. As you must know Trimet and McFarlane are all about light rail. That’s their plan for financial salvation. More MAX lines. You must also know that Light Rail was decided long ago for the SW Corridor.

    You are flat out wrong about Tigard.

    The first measure in Tigard was not sensibly drafted by the city and it does not require a public vote for rail transit projects! It was more of a ruse to confuse voters into thinking it gave control over to them rather then the light rail profiteers.

    The mayor and Cartel lied about that measure so perhaps you fell for it?

    In reality that city measure provides no more than what Milwaukie is facing on the 20th. Approve funding for light rail already being built or face a doubling of city service cuts. That’s what the Tigard City Council measure does. Requires a vote ONLY for a new tax or fee to pay for light rail that’s already been decided.

    The previous initiative measure (that came up short because of Tigard’s restrictive 90 window) was very similar to the Clackamas measure. Requiring voter approval for any spending on light rail.

    The second measure was crafted to make it address the HCT ruse and any loss of road capacity. The opposition to dedicated BRP is based upon many of the same concerns as light rail. Primarily the same as the Eugene opposition. It’s costly, slow and obstructs traffic.

    You’d have to be living in a cave to have missed the agitation for “better transit”.

    There have been all sorts of conversations about exploring replacement bus service with systems like Wilsonville Smart.

    Lower cost better service that TriMet can only talk about providing someday when a miracle happens.

    And where have you witnessed “plenty of calls to widen 99W, or I-5″? That’s what the Cartel made up to disparage the rail opposition. Dirksen and company yammering on about mowing down businesses for more cars while showing zero concern for mowing them down for light rail. There are many needed & helpful road improvements that do not involve widening 99W or I-5.

    So certainly there is widespread need for many road improvement projects including the I-5/99W connector.

    Who are the “nobody wants it in their backyard” folks? That is simply untrue unless you go way back to the early foolish notions of running it through neighborhoods. The currently defined connector is not opposed by anyone but anti-car rail zealots wanting the funding to go to unwanted rail transit.

    Yes people want “better transit”. But you seem to go out of your way to omit the option of replacement service.

    Why are you so enamored with TriMet?

    Your read of the Tualatin petitioners also misses. They have plenty of interest in better bus service city wide with better connections to many more destinations other than downtown Portland.

    Just like every other community in the region that TriMet under serves.

    Their Business CIO annual meeting even called for the city to study joining and expanding SMART.

    The city council is refusing so the coming elections may make some changes.

    The tent you do not want to visit is the voter supported combined approach of better bus service along with better roads.

    I’ll wager Portland voters would not approve another Light Rail line. Of course the Cartel doesn’t want them voting either.

    Thanks
    Joe

    • Chris I
      May 13, 2014 at 4:05 pm Link

      You do realize that if this goes through, Tigard will get absolutely no improvements in transit, right? At most, you might get some queue jumps on Barbur for the #12. You won’t get BRT and you won’t get LRT. Metro is not going to dump money into a community that does not support rapid transit options.

      So what you are essentially saying here, is that you are just fine with bus service that takes about an hour to travel the 18 miles from Tigard to Portland. You are okay with that?

      Instead of tearing down Metros plans for Tigard, why don’t you propose some alternates of your own. What will you do to get people downtown or to points in SW Portland faster? 99W does not work during rush hour. It is an absolute nightmare for all users.

      • Erik H.
        May 17, 2014 at 8:54 am Link

        “Metro is not going to dump money into a community that does not support rapid transit options.”

        Then Metro will be the next target.

        Metro has failed to sell why we need “rapid transit”, “high capacity transit”, etc. Tigard could effectively use, and support, a true commuter bus. One that runs non-stop from Tigard TC to downtown Portland.

        Many cities have commuter buses – Portland is one of the few that does not have true commuter buses. The buses that TriMet uses on the commuter routes like the 92, 94, 96 and 99 are ordinary transit buses put into long distance service, and frankly is just another example of how TriMet is far behind other leading transit agencies. Up in Seattle, true transit buses are used to support communities within the service district with fast, efficient transit into the employment centers. Same with San Francisco, with Vancouver (BC), Salt Lake City, and elsewhere.

        TriMet, and Metro, both know that light rail is not a transportation tool, it is a land-use planning tool. Here in Tigard, we want a transportation solution. Not an extension of Portland City Hall usurping the entire purpose of Tigard being an independent, sovereign city.

    • EngineerScotty
      May 14, 2014 at 12:02 am Link

      Joe wrote:

      Sorry but I suspect you have grown too accustomed to mis-characterizing rail opponents as anti-transit. It is a term I have heard often from other pro light rail advocates.,

      Followed by:

      The “light rail cartel” was in full display on Orestar etc in opposition to the Tigard vote.

      If you are going to cast broad assertions about the existence and motives of a “light rail cartel”, then you don’t get to whine when someone suggests that LRT opponents, some of them at least, are “anti-transit”.

      I know quite a few LRT opponents that are pro-transit, but think LRT a wrong or misapplied technology. I know a few folks that oppose any public transit whatsoever, and will always support whatever makes the smallest demand on the public fisc. And I know quite a few folks that view transit as a niche service for the poor, a form of welfare–but one that doesn’t merit any significant investment beyond bare-bones service, and certainly nothing requiring capital spending.

      I don’t know your specific motives, obviously.

      You’re also struggling to cling to your transit-free-bridge label. Revising it to mass-transit-free is equally inaccurate. TriMet and C-Tran bus service is certainly mass transit.

      If you prefer, then, rapid transit–by which I mean the kind that doesn’t get stuck in traffic jams. Unless we put a bus lane on the Interstate Bridge (which wouldn’t necessarily be a bad idea, though even I wouldn’t go that far :P), the current bridges do not support that. Bus, rail, I don’t much care.

      Portland politicians are not willing to accept a rail-transit-free bridge.

      And Clark County politicians are not willing to accept one with. I believe this is what is known as an “impasse”.

      The current Sellwood Bridge limitations are absolutely due to political decisions. The many years of political decisions to defer and neglect maintenance (and replacement) in favor of other appropriations is what caused the weight limitation.

      IIRC, the problem with the original Sellwood was that it was built in soils less stable than originally thought, which led to cracking that caused the 10-ton weight limit. I doubt this was a maintenance failure, and when the issue was discovered, its replacement got moved up. Prior to that, there was no need to consider replacement, as it was well short of its intended useful lifespan.

      Yes it is good that SW cities are taking on light rail early. However, you’re forgetting how Clackamas County (and the region) also took on light rail early only to have the Cartel bring it back around against known public opposition. I also believe the eleventh hour battle was an attempt to truncate PMLR at Tacoma.

      TriMet actually proposed a BRT project for the corridor, and the City of Milwaukie IIRC pitched a fit about that. BRT would actually have worked well for the corridor.

      Which is what should have been done. I’ve heard it is a real messed project south of there with Milwaukie now forced to vote to pay for it or lose city services.

      Uh, the city of Milwaukie agreed to that. It’s been a longstanding principle of law that government agencies don’t get to abrogate debts and contracts just because somebody else wins an election.

      [Me: TriMet is interested in BRT, City of Portland pushing for light rail]

      You need new tea leaves. As you must know Trimet and McFarlane are all about light rail. That’s their plan for financial salvation. More MAX lines. You must also know that Light Rail was decided long ago for the SW Corridor.

      My tea leaves are just fine, thank you very much. I doubt anything is decided at this point; the project is still early and there’s not funding identified yet to PAY for it yet. The major proponent of light rail in the corridor is Portland commissioner Steve Novick. I’ve read enough of the early planning documents to know that BRT is being treated fairly, as opposed to being sandbagged. (If you want to see an example of sandbagging in action–go dig up the bus options for the Lake Oswego streetcar proposal–it’s rather clear that they were only there because they had to be).

      The second measure was crafted to make it address the HCT ruse and any loss of road capacity. The opposition to dedicated BRP is based upon many of the same concerns as light rail. Primarily the same as the Eugene opposition. It’s costly, slow and obstructs traffic.

      You seem to be confused: Exclusive-lane transit does NOT obstruct traffic, or vice versa. That’s the whole point of giving it an exclusive lane! Cars don’t have to stop behind a bus, and busses can keep their schedules even if there is a pile-up on I-5, and everyone’s using Barbur instead, turning it into a parking lot. As far as EmX goes–it was fairly cheap, and the original project and the Gateway extensions operate mostly in exclusive lanes (with a few mixed traffic sections). The West 11th section will use a “BAT” lane (business access and transit), but in most places, West 11th is being widened.

      There is one cheap way to do exclusive-lane BRT–take lanes from cars. But that’s not being proposed in the SWC, certainly not in the Tigard/Tualatin area, where a new alignment is being proposed. (Some parts of the alignment within the city of Portland may involve road diets).

      You’d have to be living in a cave to have missed the agitation for “better transit”. There have been all sorts of conversations about exploring replacement bus service with systems like Wilsonville Smart.

      SMART exists mainly because Wilsonville has a high payroll-to-population ratio, and was rather heavily subsidizing TriMet service elsewhere–since standalone transit districts in Oregon are funded through payroll taxes, it was easy for Wilsonville to withdraw from the district set up local circulator service, and give everyone a tax cut.

      Tualatin, I’m pretty certain, doesn’t have the unusually high payrolls that Wilsonville does, and thus doesn’t have the opportunity for such arbitrage.

      (That said, I do think that the city deserves better service than it gets–including all-day direct service to Portland, as well as direct service to Sherwood and West Linn/OC. Regardless of what, if anything, is done on the SWC).

      And where have you witnessed “plenty of calls to widen 99W, or I-5?? That’s what the Cartel made up to disparage the rail opposition.

      Please, put away the tinfoil hat. ODOT has been trying to widen I-5 (more than it already has been) for quite a while now. I-5 was just widened between I-205 and Wilsonville, and I-205 widened from I-5 to Stafford Road within recent years. There’s a project going on right now which widens the I-5/99W interchange, a recent widening of 99W near 217, and another widening 99W in Tigard at the Gaarde/McDonald intersection.

      Who are the “nobody wants it in their backyard” folks?

      Clackamas County and the city of Wilsonville are the main objecters, none of whom want the traffic generated by the southern leg of the three-corridor option. (That said, maybe Tootie and company have a different opinion on this than the County did back when the Connector got tabled–though I haven’t heard them issue a call for the project to be restarted, or welcoming bulldozers to north Wilsonvolle).

      That is simply untrue unless you go way back to the early foolish notions of running it through neighborhoods. The currently defined connector is not opposed by anyone but anti-car rail zealots wanting the funding to go to unwanted rail transit.

      In general, this is a project involving ODOT, the two involved counties, and the four nearby cities (Tigard, Tualatin, Sherwood, and Wilsonville). You probably won’t find many “anti-car rail zealots” in that part of the metro area. Portland and TriMet had little input, and the project didn’t get far enough for 1000 Friends and other private environmental groups to take more than a token interest in it.

      No, the project faces a more fundamental problem: Building highways through established communities with money tends to be difficult. And unless you do something like building a new highway past Champoeg Park south of the Willamette (Marion County’s position on that idea is “no frigging way”), there’s no place to put the proposed connector that won’t annoy somebody who can afford to lawyer up.

      Yes people want “better transit”. But you seem to go out of your way to omit the option of replacement service.Why are you so enamored with TriMet?

      See above concerning SMART: Wilsonville is an unusual situation that exists nowhere else in the Metro area (Beaverton/Hillsboro could pull it off, but have little interest in doing so), and I doubt that SMART (which as part of the city of Wilsonville, not a standalone, independent transit agency) want to be in the business of subsidizing Tualatin.

    • Dave Thomson
      May 14, 2014 at 11:19 am Link

      I think Joe is mis-reading the results of the Tigard election. 49% of the voters (in a low turnout election) wanted Tigard to continue with current transit planning without any additional restrictions, despite a fear-mongering anti-transit campaign lacking in real facts.

      Once more specific plans are put forward, and Tigard gets to vote on those specifics in a general election with normal turnout, there is an excellent chance that number will be greater than 50%.

      Also by the time that vote happens, traffic congestion on 99W through Tigard will be even worse giving more impetus to approving a solid transit solution. Tigard is also like the rest of the metro area; the new generations of voters have a different view of a lot of things, including transit.

      No one is going to pay the price (budgetary and political) to add lanes to 99W or I-5 from Tigard to Portland; better mass transit options are the only way forward.

  17. joe
    May 13, 2014 at 2:55 pm Link

    You all probably now know we have the required signatures that will allow the Tualatin residents to decide what they want. Here is a letter from the chief petitioner.

    http://www.ourcityourvote.org/

    This is a non-partisan effort to make sure Tualatin gets the kind of transit and other transportation improvements that are genuinely needed and supported by Tualatin residents and businesses.

    We would like to be abundantly clear and avoid any need for clarification.

    Our Position
    We Do Not Want Light rail transit (LRT) or high capacity transit (HCT) with a dedicated bus lane in Tualatin, nor any downtown station that supports LRT/ HCT, nor the kind of high density Transit Oriented Development that adds apartments, residents, their vehicles, congestion & crime.

    We Do Want Tualatin voters given the right to have a public vote on transit projects, better bus transit service throughout Tualatin with more connections elsewhere with a less costly & better bus transit system like Wilsonville’s SMART.

    Light Rail is unacceptable because of cost and negative impacts on our community. Multi-billion dollar “fixed transit” from Tualatin to Portland is not affordable nor does it provide flexible transit options in the future.

    Over $10M has been spent to date on planning by Metro & TriMet without justification for why LRT/HCT & a Station Community designation has already been decided for Tualatin.

    If enough signatures are gathered by the May deadline there will be a Light Rail vote in a special election in September.

    Businesses and residents need to intervene before final decisions are made and it is too late.

    Please join us in helping to bring about better choices for Tualatin businesses, residents and taxpayers.

    Aaron Crowley, Chief Petitioner

    • Nathanael
      May 13, 2014 at 7:58 pm Link

      Well, you oppose transit. That’s pretty clear from that petition; you oppose anything which would make transit service faster.

      That’s fine. You have a right to do that. It’s pretty rich claiming that you aren’t “anti-transit”, though.

  18. joe
    May 13, 2014 at 9:07 pm Link

    Chris asks, “You do realize that if this goes through, Tigard will get absolutely no improvements in transit, right?”

    If what goes through? The Tigard measure passed and the charter has been changed.

    Are you asking what happens if voters turn down HCT?

    First of all I don’t believe the voters in Tigard, Tualatin or Portland will support more light rail or ridiculous BRT like Eugene.

    They want better bus service. Metro has nothing to do with Bus service and TriMet is broke.

    So yes I get it. If we want better transit we must kill the boondoggle and get replacement bus service.

    Light Rail next to I-5 is NOT better transit service for Tigard or Tualatin and the public does not want it.

    You do get that?

    It doesn’t take an hour on a bus ride from Tigard to Portland and it is only 10 miles. Any new Light Rail will improve transit commute no better than coming PMLR boondoggle will over on 99E.

    So what you are essentially saying here, is that you are just fine with forcing an unwanted worthless boondoggle upon yet another community. You are okay with that?

    The alternative is crystal clear. No Light Rail and join SMART for better bus service, for less money and going more places. Light rail is Portland’s unsustainable monster & we would like to see it stay that way.

    Light Rail only goes where the tracks go.

    99W is NOT always the Rush hour nightmare claim it is. Getting on Light Rail for part of a commute doesn’t work for most people for good reasons. I still have to get in my car drive & park to get on a lightrail train, & it takes up existing roadway.

    Arguing about light rail is a waste of time, it would seem regardless of how expensive, inefficient & unsustainable light rail is many of you have closed yourselves off to other possibilities & what we who live in Tigard/ Tualatin want.. The voters will speak and decide.

    NATHANIEL anti-transit is a false label, we are for sustainable DESIRABLE TRANSIT like what Wilsonville has with SMART!!!

    This is the future of mass transit Nathaniel buses that can make a left & right turn & come to you, not more rails & wires like with the max line!! Less infrastrucure far less cost to run & if one breaks down it doesn’t screw up the entire line!

    http://green.autoblog.com/2013/10/31/utah-state-university-raises-9m-for-wireless-electric-buses/

    Thanks
    Joe

    • Anandakos
      May 13, 2014 at 10:57 pm Link

      Wilsonville businesses aren’t going to pay for your buses.

    • Anandakos
      May 13, 2014 at 11:00 pm Link

      Oh, and, those plates in the street that your miracle buses use to recharge? Yeah. Those plates. They have to be placed in the street before they can be used. Unlesss you’re proposing scattering them around the city helter skelter,, the buses won’t “come to you”. They’ll still run regular routes.

      Is that what all this bloviation is really all about? That you don’t have your own liveried driver, m’Lord, paid for by the good burghers of the Tri-Met area?

    • Chris I
      May 14, 2014 at 7:06 am Link

      Who is going to pay for your busses that loop through low density suburban sprawl to pick up people at their house? This type of bus service is the most expensive, least efficient way to run a transit system. The cost per boarding is generally in the $5 range, vs. $2-$3 for routes like the 12. Are you going to raise taxes in Tualatin to fund this increased service?

      • Erik H.
        May 17, 2014 at 8:59 am Link

        TriMet pays $10 million a year for the rush-hour-only WES train.

        Corvallis pays about $10 million a year for their CTS bus system.

        WES carries around 2,000 riders a day – about 40,000 riders a month.

        CTS carries 70,000 riders a month in August (when OSU is not in session) and well over 100,000 when OSU is in session.

        Where would I rather spend $10 million? On a bus system that carries 2.5 times as many riders and does it six days a week with owl service, or on a rail line that works just six hours a day, five days a week, with 1/3rd the ridership?

    • Nathanael
      May 15, 2014 at 1:49 am Link

      What they said. You’re suggesting expensive, slow buses with no plan to pay for them. This is anti-transit.

      Go ahead, put up a ballot measure to raise your own taxes to pay for improved bus service, then i’ll believe you’re pro-transit.

      • Nathanael
        May 15, 2014 at 1:50 am Link

        Remember, that petition you’re signing specifically opposes bus lanes. It’s a petition to keep buses stuck in traffic!

      • Erik H.
        May 17, 2014 at 9:01 am Link

        Well, suggesting more light rail that takes away from bus service, and requires people to DRIVE to a park-and-ride isn’t exactly pro-transit.

        Oh, and a light rail line that wouldn’t even serve Tigard’s main street, and would require cutting the bus service that serves that main street, isn’t exactly pro-transit.

        And a light rail line that provides no cross-town service, isn’t exactly pro-transit.

        It’s pro-developer and pro-light rail contractor. I’m sure Siemens and Stacy & Witbeck would be proud…

  19. joe
    May 14, 2014 at 4:53 pm Link

    Hi Dave, welcome to the conversation!

    You said:
    “I think Joe is mis-reading the results of the Tigard election. 49% of the voters (in a low turnout election) wanted Tigard to continue with current transit planning without any additional restrictions, despite a fear-mongering anti-transit campaign lacking in real facts.”

    Actually Dave the turnout for an off election has never been higher in Tigard 37 percent of voters cast their ballots and the measure passed with 51%!

    49% voters did say No to our measure. I credit that to a Pro Light Rail Pact disingenuously called Stop Congestion, supported by all the light rail profiteers & the politicians they influence. The media opposing our measure also may have had some impact as many do not know Pamphlin owns Ross Island sand & gravel & would love to supply the concrete for more light rail! Fear Mongering from a Pro Vote measure Dave REALLY, did you not read the Oregonian bias towards a pro-vote measure or see the ridiculous claims the Stop Congestion folks were making???

    Stop Congestion sent out flyers saying Don’t let outside extremists silence your vote “Vote NO” Since when did allowing a vote become equivalent to more Congestion or silencing someone’s voice Dave??? They even sent out Flyers of us in wolves clothing Dave, if I didn’t know better I would have voted no too.

    Also Dave no one who gathered or signed the petitions or voted yes on our measure were anti-transit as you would like to label those who prefer deciding our own communities future then folks like yourself! Real Facts Dave or your version of them??? I challenge you to demonstrate where any of my arguments or claims come up short on facts???

    You said:
    Once more specific plans are put forward, and Tigard gets to vote on those specifics in a general election with normal turnout, there is an excellent chance that number will be greater than 50%.

    Another campaign of lies & slander by the same Stop Congestion Pact will succeed?? We put up some signs & sent out 2 mailers to the light rail profiteers 6, we didn’t make any phone calls, didn’t have the media working for us, politicians, or the chamber of commerce. How much will the light rail Cartel spend to convince people they have their best interests at heart?

    You said:
    Also by the time that vote happens, traffic congestion on 99W through Tigard will be even worse giving more impetus to approving a solid transit solution. Tigard is also like the rest of the metro area; the new generations of voters have a different view of a lot of things, including transit.

    We like our suburban community Dave, lets keep the high density in Portland!!

    You said
    No one is going to pay the price (budgetary and political) to add lanes to 99W or I-5 from Tigard to Portland; better mass transit options are the only way forward.

    FYI We have a WES train & buses already in Tigard!!

    Thanks
    Joe

    • Chris I
      May 15, 2014 at 7:11 am Link

      Your pro-slow bus with no funding source position gives away your hand, Joe. Your only solutions are road widening and increased car dependence. Stop trying to trick everyone into believing that you care about the transit riders in your community.

      • Erik H.
        May 17, 2014 at 9:02 am Link

        So building a light rail line on the edge of town, while simultaneously cutting bus service, and forcing people to drive to a park-and-ride, is caring about transit riders and is NOT forcing car dependence?

  20. EngineerScotty
    May 15, 2014 at 8:36 am Link

    An interesting question:

    As we enter the DEIS stage, an important consideration to think about is phasing (something that isn’t generally given much thought in the early planning process). My assumption has been, for a long time, that even if there was a political consensus for this project, there wouldn’t be enough budget to do this in one phase.

    However, part two of that assumption, was that Phase 1 would end at Tigard TC.

    It is possible that it may still end up that way–that an actual funding referendum for an actual product would pass a vote there. (Or perhaps Metro picks up Tigard’s funding share, and then reduces contributions to Tigard road projects by an equivalent amount). But what if Tigard doesn’t support the project? Would a line to, say, PCC be a viable phase 1?

    • Anandakos
      May 19, 2014 at 10:44 am Link

      “Or perhaps Metro picks up Tigard’s funding share, and then reduces contributions to Tigard road projects by an equivalent amount”

      Really? That’s possible, What a very good idea.

      • Anandakos
        May 19, 2014 at 10:45 am Link

        Should have been a question mark after “That’s possible”.

  21. Reza
    May 19, 2014 at 10:15 am Link

    Looking forward to the day where the OHSU tunnel station is “value-engineered” out of this proposal too. (not)

    As if the aerial tram wasn’t enough, what Portland really needs is yet another new mode of transit that requires a transfer to get downtown (a funicular railway up the side of Marquam Hill).

    • Chris I
      May 19, 2014 at 3:10 pm Link

      If they just wait for “the big one”, most of the campus will slide down the hill and will be easily serviced by a few stops on Barbur Blvd.

  22. Joe
    May 19, 2014 at 4:55 pm Link

    Perhaps a new thread Scotty?? Titled Why Politicians & those who profit from light rail do not want a public vote???

    Tigard Cityscape had some interesting articles from city councilman Woodward claiming generation Y doesn’t want a big house or a yard. We have them telling us they support the vote & then do everything to work against it. They will be challenging our measure come November, it is interesting how they spin it not just through our local paper but through Pamphlins papers too.

    This was my favorite quote from Councilman Woodward: ” These young people aren’t as likely to value big houses and yards and big cars. A majority will likely prefer multi-modal choices to get around and smaller dwelling spaces; interconnected lives within a 21st century regional marketplace that includes ef?cient transit connections central to their living space, place of work and places they spend their leisure time. The advisory vote to be put forth to the citizens of Tigard is part of that “different communicative approach” to engage HCT options voters will support.”
    http://www.tigard-or.gov/community/cityscape/default.asp

    What he has a crystal ball so you might as well eliminate all choice now bring in more apartments & lightrail?? Funny I always thought Democrats were all about choice, I guess that is when it doesn’t conflict with your special interests?

    Thanks
    Joe

    • Anandakos
      May 19, 2014 at 6:32 pm Link

      Yawn. Boring right-wing

      • Anandakos
        May 19, 2014 at 6:33 pm Link

        Yawn. Boring right-wing flackery. We know you’re voting against Councilman Woodward. Thank you for the notice.

      • Anandakos
        May 19, 2014 at 6:33 pm Link

        (contd)
        flackery. We know you’re voting against Councilman Woodward. Thank you for the notice.

    • Chris I
      May 20, 2014 at 8:36 am Link

      Eliminate all choice? You currently have two choices if you want to get around: drive, or take 4 times longer on a slow bus. If you want more choice, you should be arguing for better bike and pedestrian routes, and faster transit options.

      But you don’t want choice. You just want to maintain the status quo, so don’t pretend otherwise.

    • EngineerScotty
      May 20, 2014 at 10:48 am Link

      I’m thinking of doing a followup article to the “secession” post, but I’ll decline the offer to write your propaganda for you. :)

      At any rate, nobody is coming to “eliminate choice”. If you prefer single-family housing, there’s plenty of that on the market today, and plenty more of it being built. Nobody is going to come over with a bulldozer to knock down your house and replace it with Soviet Style Block Housing, tenements, etc. Nor is anyone going to confiscate your car and make you buy a bus pass. Indeed–one of the stated goals of the Tualatin anti-LRT campaign is keeping (additional) apartments and such out of Tualatin; that sounds to me like an attempt to deny housing choices, far more so than anything transit supporters are engaged in.

  23. joe
    May 21, 2014 at 11:09 pm Link

    Engineer Scotty

    Really?

    Websters takes issue with your claim.
    pro·pa·gan·da
    noun \?prä-p?-?gan-d?, ?pr?-\

    : ideas or statements that are often false or exaggerated and that are spread in order to help a cause, a political leader, a government, etc.

    YOU SAID: At any rate, nobody is coming to “eliminate choice”. If you prefer single-family housing, there’s plenty of that on the market today, and plenty more of it being built. Nobody is going to come over with a bulldozer to knock down your house and replace it with Soviet Style Block Housing, tenements, etc.

    So nobody in Milwaukie got their house bulldozed to make room fro lightrail infrastructure?? More high density housing isn’t part of the light rail package Portlandia would like to shove through Tigard??

    YOU SAID:
    Nor is anyone going to confiscate your car and make you buy a bus pass. Indeed–one of the stated goals of the Tualatin anti-LRT campaign is keeping (additional) apartments and such out of Tualatin; that sounds to me like an attempt to deny housing choices, far more so than anything transit supporters are engaged in

    Scotty we made our choice we live in a SUBURBAN Community, have plenty of apartments here already, we will let you folks up there live in apartments if that is your choice..

    What else you got came up real short on this one?

    Thanks
    Joe

    • EngineerScotty
      May 22, 2014 at 12:41 am Link

      The essence of “propaganda” is persuasion, not falsity. All political advocacy is propoganda. Some of it is honest, some of it is not. At any rate, I’m not going to argue your position for you.

      A few buildings were torn down to make way for LRT, just as buildings are routinely torn down for freeway expansions and such. (Consider the fate of South Portland, or the southern part of Albina now occupied by the Rose Quarter, or the entirety of N. Minnesota Street). But those buildings are being torn down to install the actual tracks and stations. Nobody’s being forced to sell their home so developers can build apartments.

      And no, high density housing isn’t part of the “package”–TriMet is building tracks and stations, not condos and whatnot. OTOH, zoning regulations along the line, in some places, are being relaxed to permit the construction of higher-density housing. What was previously illegal is being made legal in the vicinity of MAX. But such housing is only being built where landowners choose to do so; neither the city of Milwaukie nor Metro is telling homeowners “you must tear down your single-family bungalow, so we (or our pet developers) can build apartments here”. Simply isn’t happening.

      OTOH, many iseem to oppose LRT because they want to keep the current zonings that prohibit apartment construction.

      And “Portlandia”, ultimately, doesn’t control zoning in Tigard or Milwaukie or Tualatin, nor does Metro, and certainly nor does TriMet. The City of Tigard does. If Tigard decides that it isn’t going to re-zone its downtown, there’s nothing that Portland or Metro can do about that, short of going to the state Legislature. There’s a reason that Damascus incorporated–to take control of zoning away from Clackamas County. (Of course, while all the factions in Damascus agreed they didn’t want to turn into Beaverton-without-the-jobs, they couldn’t agree as to whether they should stay rural or turn into Happy Valley South; hence the current silliness and inability to put together a comprehensive plan…)

      Actually, I’m not sure what folks in Tualatin are worried about. There are two proposed stops in the city (for SWC)–one at Bridgeport and one downtown. Bridgeport is a commercial district next to a freeway–I doubt much in the way of housing will sprout up there. And while downtown Tualatin does have housing, including apartments within walking distance of the station, it’s already built out for the most part: Unless you are going to tear down existing buildings, where in downtown Tualatin would you put new high-density housing? Unless there is a massive influx of new arrivals to the Portland metro area, I can’t imagine such a thing being attractive to developers.

      (Tigard might be a different matter, given the greenfield potential in the Triangle, and a downtown with far less intense land uses).

      But if your goal is to limit density–your target should be the City Council, not the regional transit authority. Elect an anti-density city government, and you’ll have little to fear from turning into the Pearl…

  24. joe
    May 25, 2014 at 10:26 pm Link

    Scotty

    Yes a new city council & a new mayor may just be what it takes to keep the light rail profiteers & their propaganda machine from turning our nice suburban community into a slum of Portland?

    Liar-In-Chief Mayor Cook’s oped piece is choke full of falsehoods. Some not very becoming of an Eagle Scout. FYI he was the Pro vote candidate when we helped get him elected! Unfortunately Portlandia convinced him not to stick to his word or perhaps he just told us what we wanted to hear so we would help get him elected???

    Here is a real DOOZY!!!

    Cook, “Many of us were dumbfounded when the proponents of this measure explained to the Tigard Chamber of Commerce that their purpose in the measure isn’t to give people a right to vote on transit. We already have that right. They explained their purpose is to ensure there is never a project to vote upon!”

    Tigard Times February 20, 2014

    COMMUNITY SOP BOX

    by John L. Cook

    The clarification he must be seeking is for his own lies. Anyone with a brain cell can see he isnt looking for clarification of what Tigard residents want, he will just use these little meetings he is having to say there was justification in giving $365,000 to Metro for a study on an unwanted light rail.

    Websters has your side summed up pretty well, I’d say Scotty.

    • EngineerScotty
      May 26, 2014 at 12:56 am Link

      Well, if you think the Tigard city council needs replacing, knock yourself out. That’s what elections are for, after all.

      At any rate, I wouldn’t worry about Tualatin becoming a “slum” of Portland due to light rail (or other HCT); Gresham and Beaverton and Hillsboro have not turned into slums, after all–and neither has Clackamas nor Milwaukie. There are slums along MAX (Rockwood probably meets the definition), but those places were slums long before MAX went through.

      I would have thought that the idea that rapid transit turns places into ghettos (or that they enable the criminal element to terrorize distant neighborhoods, as though gangsters and punks can’t drive or take the bus) were 20th century notions that have long been discredited, but apparently not.

      On the other hand, many older suburban communities in other parts of the country are starting to hit financial difficulties–and in some cases have decayed into slums–due to a combination of a) aging infrastructure that is starting to exceed its useful life and needs replacement, and b) a shrinking tax base as wealthier residents seek out greener pastures elsewhere, property values go down, and the poor move in. One of the nice things about Oregon land-use law is that it has largely prevented new greenfield developments from filling up the Willamette Valley, each trying to offer residents an existence free from the legacy costs of established places, and pilfer the tax bases of existing communities. Much of Tualatin is new enough that it probably doesn’t have to worry about this issue yet, though Tigard, being a bit older, might.

  25. EngineerScotty
    May 26, 2014 at 1:04 am Link

    TriMet is now suggesting a “split” HCT routing for the Southwest Corridor, with a wye of some sort in the Tigard Triangle, and one spur running to Tigard TC and the other to Tualatin. This would keep Tualatin commuters from having to loop in to Tigard, but would mean that a different mode would be needed to get between the two cities, and frequency on the branches would be half that on the trunk.

    While the Metro article is mode-agnostic, this sort of branching topology makes more sense with BRT than with rail.

    • Anandakos
      May 26, 2014 at 10:01 am Link

      Finally, “Open BRT”, the sane solution in this funnel shaped corridor.

Leave a Reply

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