Update: 9/24/07
Here’s the full report (PDF, 67K) of the steering committee recommendation.
Here’s the critical language around the trail piece:
a. Metro, with assistance from project partners through the TAC and PMG, should develop a process to undertake the Trail Refinement Next Steps listed above. The result of this process would be to resolve key issues and determine the relationship of the trail and the transit project during the DEIS phase. Of particular importance are:
i. Involvement of the public and advocacy groups in improving the trail concept
ii. Definition of the lead agency for advancement of a trail
iii. Development of an approach to reduce capital costs
iv. Analysis of possible phasing of trail segments
v. Identification of potential trail capital funding sources
Original Post: 9/11/07
The steering committee discussion around the Willamette Shoreline transit Alternatives Analysis was fascinating as much for what wasn’t said as what was.
To end the suspense, the recommendation is to have both Streetcar and an “enhanced bus” option (defined as less capital intensive than a full BRT approach) proceed into a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. The recommendation also keeps a full set of options alive at either end: operating in either Macadam or the rail right-of-way through John’s Landing will be studied, as will terminus options at both Albertsons and Safeway in LO.
This contrasts with the project committee which recommended taking the Johns Landing rail and Safeway options off the table. The other major difference from the project committee recommendation was the adamant refusal of the steering committee to look at project terminus at Nevada St. (just north of the Sellwood Bridge). The EIS process will look at Nevada as a potential MOS (minimum operable segment – i.e., a potential phase in the larger project). This is about whether the project will get through Dunthorpe or not, and while the project committee could not get consensus on this (they split 10-9), the steering committee didn’t want to go anywhere near the idea of a shorter project. As Metro Councilor Brian Newman noted “these projects are about connecting Regional and Town Centers, if the project stops short of that I can think of lots of other projects to look at instead” (that’s a slight paraphrase, I’m not a stenographer).
Interestingly, it appears that the good folks of Dunthorpe now have a professional lobbyist on the job, who was there for the meeting.
This is an interesting contrast to the Streetcar Loop project, where the project advisory committee got to unanimous consensus, and no significantly different recommendations from the staff group. This is going to be harder…
One interesting big picture note: the committee took some pains to clarify that the suggested financial timing in the background materials did not imply that this was necessarily the next priority project after Milwaukie LRT, but rather a project that should be developed “so it’s ready for an opportunity” for Federal funding in the words of TriMet General Manager Fred Hansen. However, it would appear that all the planners available to do the EIS work for the project are tied up until 2008 – that should allow some time to find the funding for the next round of study.
Hopefully it’s also enough time to line up sponsorship for the trail portion of the project. The steering committee approved all the right words about continuing to study getting a trail through the corridor (as a separate project planned at the same time), but that’s also going to need funding.
Oregonian coverage of the meeting here.
30 responses to “Creeping Up To Dunthorpe”
I hope the people in Dunthorpe realize that the products and services they use everyday that they demand to pay ‘bottom dollar’ for because of ‘free market enterprise competition’ or whatever are supported by people working for low wages and little or no benefits that need to rely on transit so that they can perform that job, and in some cases are willing to do that 2 hr. bus commute for something that takes 30 mins. driving since it’s the difference between having a job or not.
It will be interesting if this project gets hijacked and derailed by NIMBYs who built or bought property too close to the existing and functioning rail line.
I understand that the right-of-way itself is worth $75 million toward securing a federal funding match. If we don’t use part of it — if we run the tracks on Macadam through the John’s Landing area and let the right-of-way between Bancroft and Nevada (or wherever) disappear, do we lose federal matching credit for the part of the right-of-way that we give up?
On the subject of NIMBYs — this is one of those rare cases when NIMBYs are protesting something that is literally in their back yards.
I understand that the right-of-way itself is worth $75 million toward securing a federal funding match. If we don’t use part of it — if we run the tracks on Macadam through the John’s Landing area and let the right-of-way between Bancroft and Nevada (or wherever) disappear, do we lose federal matching credit for the part of the right-of-way that we give up?
Yes, which (at least in John’s Landing) leads to a potential strategy like “hey, sign up for an LID worth [amt equivalent to loss in matching value] and we’ll put the tracks in Macadam.”
There are plenty of valid reasons to put the tracks in Macadam (more development potential and a much greater ridership catchment area), but the $$$ are hard to pass up.
“It will be interesting if this project gets hijacked and derailed by NIMBYs who built or bought property too close to the existing and functioning rail line.”
Well, for once I hope the Dunthorpe MINBYs succeed. Last night I rode the trolley to and from the Old Spaghetti Restaurant.
The clunky and VERY snail-like operation below Naito Parkway is a joke, ESPECIALLY for a contempory facility. Any bus could have beaten the pants off that ride.
Is this what it would be like to crawl all the way up from LO? God help us all.
It sounded in the Oregonian piece like it was Streetcar and “no build”…aka “enhanced bus service.” But BRT is dead. Good.
re Streetcar…my recollection is that down on the single track to SoWa it gets some speed up.
But remember, if it were a bus instead, there would be “no there, there.”…i.e. Streetcar is a development project as well as a transportation one.
There are some places rail is just not viable, and there are some places BRT is. This, as much as i hate to admit it, is one of the BRT. “Snail-like” is something I would agree describes the present streetcar, and as such it only works in neighborhood applications not node-to-node.
Sounds like you folks are gearing up for the same fight we have here in Los Angeles with the light rail Expo Line. Phase I is funded and ground has just been broken, to take the line as far as Culver City. This mostly goes through “underprivleged” inner city ‘hoods.
But ah, Phase II. There lies the rub. Phase II continues the line to (nearly) the Pacific Ocean in Santa Monica. That’s where the NIMBYs of Cheviot Hills come in.
The light rail route should go straight along the old Pacific Electric ROW, which passes the south edge of Cheviot Hills, a large neighborhood of mostly elderly, well-off, single family homeowners. Of course, they are screaming like chickens. They want the line to bypass their neighborhood entirely, adding at least 2 miles and 10 minutes to the total trip time.
Anyway, this line has been in the planning stages for years. Check out Friends for Expo (www.friends4expo.org). They might be able to give you folks some advice on dealing with this. Also there’s Light Rail for Cheviot (lightrailforcheviot.org), some of the residents of the neighborhood who actually want the light rail near their houses (it would bring up property values, you know).
I know there haven’t been trains running on that line for over 40 years, but still, when the people moved into the neighborhood, they should have realized that someday the tracks might be used for something once again. L.A. is growing, not shrinking. And now they want to punish the entire west side of Los Angeles (and the whole county, really) by leaving the train network unfinished.
Anyway, good luck to you folks with getting as much streetcar as you can.
If the tracks end up on Macadam rather than in the existing rail right-of-way, it should become completely obvious to all observers the primary purpose of the streetcar is to gum and obstruct up traffic (just like the Eastside route on MLK, Grand and the Broadway Bridge) with only a secondary purpose to transport people.
And it should be completely obvious to all observers that if it happens at least part of it will end up on the right of way, since this is also about getting federal money to dole out to the insiders. But the folks in Dunthorpe are wise to this game and won’t let a wealth transfer project wreck their neighborhood. The title of this topic “Creeping…” is so perfect for a discussion about the street car. Maybe the light rail folks have finally met their match and this will be the beginning of the end for the amazing waste of money that these rail projects are.
If the streetcar ends up on its own ROW then I think it makes sense, as it will be able to bypass the traffic mess on 43. If it’s on Macadam it makes just as much sense as BRT (BRT would be cheaper, but streetcar would have its own ROW for at least part of the trip).
I just don’t see how the people in Dunthorpe have a leg to stand on, their homes abut a line that is still in operation. Had it been abandoned 30 years ago I’d be much more sympathetic.
Lenny, the streetcar does make very good time on its own ROW between Gibbs and the Marquam Bridge, but I do have to admit that the “S” curve under the bridge really, really, really slows things down.
It’s not often that I agree with Terry, but as someone who uses SW Macadam on a regular basis using both car and bus, putting the tracks in the street would be a terrible idea, especially when there’s actually a viable right of way just one block west! Much as I want streetcar in this corridor, I can’t see how putting it in mixed traffic on Macadam would do any better time-wise than the existing 35 bus.
I’m concerned that the discovery we can use Streetcar as a development tool with a secondary purpose of transportation has blinded people to the fact that under the right circumstances, Streetcar can be a transportation tool with incidental benefit to development.
Like in this case. Streetcar on the existing line will still benefit developers on Macadam; it will bring residents home and employees to work, and simply means people will have to walk an extra block or so. The development benefits are still there. But given the distances involved, the primary purpose of this line should be a transportation project, not a development tool — especially since Macadam is pretty well developed already. This isn’t a blank slate like South Waterfront; we’d be looking at spotty redevelopment of individual lots.
Steering the line to Macadam costs more, potentially blocks traffic, and slows down service. We shouldn’t give this any serious consideration if the streetcar is to be a viable transportation project.
There are some places rail is just not viable, and there are some places BRT is. This, as much as i hate to admit it, is one of the BRT.
The numbers show just the reverse. BRT will get slower and slower as Highway 43 continues to congest (and there is no realistic hope of expansion because of the constrained right-of-way). Streetcar has a significant travel time savings. So while Streetcar requires a higher initial capital investment, over a 20-year horizon it comes in with lower total expense than BRT.
“Creeping…” is so perfect for a discussion about the street car
My first working title was “Storming Dunthorpe”, but I decided that was impolitic :-)
Spot on, djk.
But given the distances involved, the primary purpose of this line should be a transportation project, not a development tool
Exactly right. The point is that there needs to be more transportation service in that corridor. Maybe the mistake here was not including a road alternative. Dunthorpe folks might think streetcar sounds great if a freeway is the alternative.
“Lenny, the streetcar does make very good time on its own ROW between Gibbs and the Marquam Bridge…”
>>>> But that is negated by the fact that I have seen trolleys waiting at Gibbs until the opposing direction car has arrived. And that short single-track stretch is the only place south of Naito were streetcar has any sort of speed.
“Streetcar has a significant travel time savings.”
>>>> Somebody wrote a letter to the Tribune saying that Metro’s projected congestion numbers for Route #43 were inflated. I won’t comment on that.
What I do think, however, is that if streetcar operation to LO is anyting like it now is south of Naito Parkway, its projected travel times to LO probably are bogus.
Once River Parkway is extended through what is now Zidell, the Streetcar will have a full loop thru SoWa with no single track. Likewise up at PSU, the single track will go when the line runs diagonally thru the block between 4th & 5th.
These things take time.
Hard to see how any bus…God love ’em…stuck in traffic on 43 can do better than a Streetcar on its own track…even if it is single track for some of the route.
Agreed, but it’s hard to see how a streetcar would do any better than a bus should they decide to put it in Macadam.
Hard to see how any bus…God love ’em…stuck in traffic on 43 can do better than a Streetcar on its own track…even if it is single track for some of the route.
TriMet’s OWN statistics show that the 35-Macadam Line has an 87% on-time performance in the Winter 2005/2006 time period, and 83% in the Fall 2005.
That makes the 35 the 13th BEST performing route. I’m finding it very hard to justify the “stuck in traffic” argument.
(For the record, here are the best routes:
60 Leahy Road – 96%
37 Lake Grove – 95%
23 San Rafael – 92%
87 Airport Way/181st – 92%
53 Arctic/Allen – 91%
63 Washington Park – 91%
85 Swan Island – 90%
86 Alderwood – 89%
46 North Hillsboro – 89%
22 Parkrose – 89%
99 McLoughlin Express – 88%
61 Marquam Hill/Beaverton TC Express – 88%
Notice that the the 35 is actually the BEST performing regular line haul bus out of downtown Portland (and second best bus serving downtown Portland if one includes the 99X).
Now for the worst:
95 Tigard/I-5 Express – 61% (route terminated)
157 Happy Valley – 67%
84 Kelso/Boring – 68%
66 Marquam Hill/Hollywood TC Express – 68%
12 Barbur Blvd – 68%
64 Marquam Hill/Tigard TC Express – 69%
8 Jackson Park – 69%
68 Collins Circle – 70%
152 Milwaukie – 71%
94 Sherwood/Pacific Highway Express – 72%
Notice that FOUR of the WORST TEN routes travel the 99W/Barbur Blvd/I-5. corridor.
As for ODOT traffic counts on Highway 43:
Julia Street – 24,900 ADT
North of Taylors Ferry – 20,900
North of Sellwood Bridge – 32,900
Portland City Limits – 21,300
North of Terwilliger – 21,700
South of Terwilliger – 26,400
Compared with Highway 99W:
North of Hamilton – 37,300
North of Capitol Highway (Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway) – 35,700
North of Terwilliger – 19,500
South of Terwilliger – 32,200
South of Multnomah – 27,700
North of I-5 (Barbur/99W Interchange) – 22,600
South of I-5 – 53,800
Of course, that doesn’t include the traffic ON I-5, which ranges from 104,400 to 144,100 in the same exact corridor – meaning the I-5/Barbur Corridor carries about 170,000 ADT a day – and yet TriMet/Metro have NO PLANS to improve transportation access.
Suddenly, the Lake Oswego Streetcar is truly becoming a “solution looking for a problem”, based on data provided straight from TriMet (via the TriMet Operators Yahoo forum, as TriMet refuses to publicly provide that data) and ODOT (which posts their data on their website).
OK, I’ll make one correction. The 35 is the THIRD best, if you count the 63-Washington Park as well. But I find little reason to include a bus whose existance is almost entirely based upon tourism (given that park and ride users are prohibited from using the Washington Park/Zoo parking lot), and that makes only ONE run between 7:00 AM and 8:00 AM (it is an hourly route).
TriMet’s OWN statistics show that the 35-Macadam Line has an 87% on-time performance in the Winter 2005/2006 time period, and 83% in the Fall 2005.
Yeah, but we’re projecting out to 2025, when 43 will be much more congested. And before you go there, the topography provides not realistic option for widening the highway.
Is it the topography or the fact that more NIMBY’s would team up with NAMFAE’s (No Auto Mobility For Anyone Else) to kill road widening? Ever drive HWY 1 in California or the old Colombia River HWY? HWY 43 looks easy compared to those.
I think it was Charlie Hales to noted to me that plans are great, but you have to jump at opportunities. The “plan” did not have MAX to PDX until some years later, but a private party stepped up and made an offerand bingo, it got built. Streetcar to LO may not be the highest priority of the regional rail plan, but the ROW is there, and in the City of Lake Oswego, it has a champion to move it forward.
Until Tigard, Tualatin, Kruse Woods, SW Portland neighborhoods or whomever get serious about upgrading the I-5 corridor with high capacity transit, it is an risk of languishing despite its clear need. Don’t wait for the “plan.”
Yeah, but we’re projecting out to 2025, when 43 will be much more congested. And before you go there, the topography provides not realistic option for widening the highway.
OK, in 2025, how much traffic will be on I-5/99W/Barbur Blvd.????????
Until Tigard, Tualatin, Kruse Woods, SW Portland neighborhoods or whomever get serious about upgrading the I-5 corridor with high capacity transit, it is an risk of languishing despite its clear need.
That doesn’t matter. Metro and TriMet are the responsible entities for funding and developing transit in the region.
If Metro/TriMet have no desire for providing region-wide improvements, they are welcome to vote my home and my neighborhood out of their service districts – and stop collecting taxes from me. Until then, they have a legal responsibility to provide regional transportation improvements – and if a 200% higher traffic count doesn’t fly, what is the criteria for Metro/TriMet to provide service anywhere?
(Me thinks bribes from developers.)
That doesn’t matter. Metro and TriMet are the responsible entities for funding and developing transit in the region.
As you know, JPACT, the region’s transportation planning group, is made up almost entirely of local elected officials.
What does it cost to operate all these various planning committees every year?
Greg, that depends on what is budgeted by the agencies that are facilitating the planning and public process, and what percentage of which paid positions are allocated toward the process.
I can tell you that about 10% of the Lents Town Center URA budget goes toward administrative costs of the PDC, which includes all of the meeting facilitation, publications and other costs of program outreach in the URA.
As you know, JPACT, the region’s transportation planning group, is made up almost entirely of local elected officials.
What’s your point?