A streetcar route or enhanced bus service from downtown to Lake Oswego were the options selected for further study and the BRT option was officially eliminated. The Oregonian reports:
Though years away, a streetcar linking South Waterfront to Lake Oswego took another step closer to reality this afternoon when Metro councilors approved an environmental impact study.
The study will examine the effects of two transportation options: a streetcar ending at Johns Landing or Lake Oswego or enhanced bus service along Southwest Macadam Avenue and Oregon 43.
Continue reading Bus and streetcar options studied for Lake Oswego to South Waterfront route
65 responses to “Bus and streetcar options studied for Lake Oswego to South Waterfront route”
great, now hopefully they’ll make the right decision to select streetcar on the entire WST route
John –
Thanks for your comments.
Please consider adopting a new moniker here, such as adding your last initial to your name. We’ve recently had another “John” here who has made a number of posts, and I’d like for readers not to become confused about who is saying what to whom.
Thanks,
Bob R.
The streetcar option makes sense for this area because the traffic on 43 is horrendous!
I agree. I feel that the success of this project hinges on our ability to utilize dedicated right-of-way along the entire route into downtown Lake Oswego. This corridor is already heavily congested and roadway expansion impossible due to geographic constraints. Buses will not be able to perform better (travel-time) than autos in the corridor (without removing a travel lane to install a reversible HOV/HOT lane, which is not on the table), so the streetcar is by far the best option for providing a faster trip in 2030 and beyond.
this is a no brainer, imagine a high speed streetcar on th existing rails, would be super popular and heavily used… The right of way has been in place for nearly a century so the folks of Dunthorpe have no right to object, may need a high fence or hedge to keep pets of the track… go Lake Oswego trolley or light rail..
Why is it either/or? Bus and streetcar service in this corridor would provide better service, attract more ridership, would be cheaper to operate and would be far less expensive to develop than streetcar alone.
The #35 Macadam Bus, a primary corridor route between Oregon City, West Linn, Lake Oswego and the CBD should have been upgraded to frequent service years ago. Also, it’s northern segment between Bancroft and Harrison should be rerouted through South Waterfront. Currently, there is no access to service in this segment of the route because a freeway separates its inbound and outbound stops.
Streetcars should be a supplement to this service, not a replacement. They are especially needed during peak hours because they can bypass Hwy 43 traffic congestion and can efficiently accommodate additional peak demand.
Upgrading the existing single track Willamette Shore Line for streetcars to operate at 30-minute headways would be relatively inexpensive compared to current plans. Expensive route diversions from the existing line would not be necessary. Fewer streetcars would have to be purchased and with fewer of them operating through the Johns Landing and Dunthorpe Neighborhoods, local opposition should be reduced. The proposed Lake Oswego parking garage and expensive southern extension beyond the current terminal create unnecessary negative impacts and are not needed, especially if the #35 remains in service. A transfer facility for local bus lines and future commuter rail, without parking facilities, can be provided at the existing WSRR terminus.
The flexibility to take the bus or the streetcar would attract more ridership than only one option. This is especially true for Oregon City and West Linn passengers.
I would assume that the 35 will continue to run regardless of the Streetcar decision, just as the 77 still runs on the Lovejoy/Northrup couplet.
Some interesting comments from a developer of condos in the Corbett area in Saturday’s “urban dwelling” insert in the “O.” Having Streetcar on Macadam through the busy commercial section…Hamilton to Nevada or so…offers more development potential. I wonder how much travel time would be lost with that alignment vs staying on the WST alignment. Would there be room for exclusive ROW on Macadam? We tend to think of that section of Macadam as a place to “get thru” rather than a plact to “get to” in its own right.
I wonder how the residents of SoWa feel about having the 35 run thru the middle of their quiet corner. It could be that Streetcar is all the transit they want, not that they are correct in this. Jim is right, SoWa needs the 35.
Jim: The TIP says that 35 is slated to become frequent service in the not too distant future… (The TIP also says that is only has 25 BR/VH compared to the system average of 32, and compared to most frequent service routes in the 40s…)
Lenny: My understanding, (as of a couple of months ago,) was that the 35 wouldn’t be continued if the streetcar went in. However, the article seems to imply that that has changed: “We want to connect Portland and Lake Oswego without having to force people to transfer”
I’ve posted this idea before, but since we’re on the topic I’ll repeat a summary of it:
We can split the difference between travel time, development potential, and expense by putting a single-lane of tracks an Macadam.
Use the existing Willamette Shore Trolley ROW in Johns Landing as a northbound track, which will ensure fast, reliable trip times in the morning peak, when timeliness is especially important to commuters.
Use a single track on Macadam, possibly even in the median area so that it is a dedicated lane, for southbound trips.
The resulting streetcar “couplet” will actually be no further apart than the current spacing on Lovejoy / Northrup (closer in most places, in fact) which has not been a problem for users. With enhanced sidewalks/walkways and markings between northbound/southbound platforms, users will be able to navigate the system easily.
Developers will have a visible streetcar presence on Macadam, and Johns Landing residents along the current ROW will see approximately half the overall streetcar traffic than they would otherwise see, and coming from a predictable direction which should enhance safety.
The agencies involved will be able to leverage the full value of the entire length of the ROW for the purposes of federal matching, and will have significantly lower expenses on the Macadam segment than if it were double-tracked.
I formally proposed this alternative awhile back at a Metro hearing, but I don’t think the idea had much of a reception.
– Bob R.
Lenny,
I suspect that the added capital cost and running time needed to divert the streetcar to operate on Macadam between Hamilton and Nevada would be hard to justify, especially if the #35 bus that serves this area were upgraded to frequent service and provided a direct connection between the neighborhoods west of Macadam and South Waterfront.
I don’t know enough about ROW widths, etc. to comment, but I am sure that Streetcar operating in traffic on Macadam will not fly.
Jim,
my guess is if the money is spent to build out the Streetcar to LO, it will be operated with enough frequency to provide the transit link in this corridor. The 35 will turn around at LO and return to Oregon City. I rode the 35 a few years ago and there were virtually no boardings between LO and Johns Landing. I wonder what its ridership is with the extension to N. Portland.
I have a copy of the Fall, 2006 ridership numbers. Here are the stop-by-stop weekday averages for the inbound #35. I hope these numbers will help the discussion. If anyone wants me to post the outbound direction stats as well, just ask.
STOPNAME / ONS / OFFS
Oregon City Transit Center17911
Main & 8th (Oregon City)40
6th & Railroad141
Willamette Dr & Willamette Falls Dr133
Willamette Dr & Holly141
Willamette Dr & Burns103
Willamette Dr & Lewis91
Willamette Dr & Holmes81
Willamette Dr & Failing41
Willamette Dr & Elliott61
Willamette Dr & Barlow41
Willamette Dr & Hughes31
Willamette Dr & Pimlico61
Willamette Dr & Jolie Pointe41
Willamette Dr & Mark31
Willamette Dr & Mohawk61
Willamette Dr & Chow Mein Lane32
Willamette Dr & Mapleton75
Willamette Dr & Cedar Oak719
Willamette Dr & Walling Way106
Willamette Dr & Lazy River Dr75
Willamette Dr & Shady Hollow22
Willamette Dr & Arbor32
Pacific Hwy & Marylhurst Univ. Driveway177
Pacific Hwy & Holy Names Drive134
Pacific Hwy & Glenmorrie21
Pacific Hwy & Cherry31
Pacific Hwy & Laurel82
S State & Wilbur215
S State & North Shore269
N State & Foothills406
B Ave & Second St118
Lake Oswego Transit Center15858
A Ave & Second St154
N State & B Ave232
N State & E Ave61
SW Riverside & Briarwood11
SW Riverside & Elk Rock00
SW Riverside & Greenwood21
SW Riverside & Military41
SW Riverside & Palatine Hill11
SW Riverside & Riverwood10
SW Riverside & Riverdale10
SW Macadam & Miles46
SW Macadam & Nevada225
SW Macadam & Florida181
SW Macadam & Nebraska161
SW Macadam & Carolina90
SW Macadam & Pendleton252
SW Macadam & Flower71
SW Macadam & Boundary206
SW Macadam & Julia42
SW Macadam & Hamilton Ct331
SW Macadam & Bancroft122
SW Macadam & Thomas10
SW Macadam & Gaines10
SW Macadam & Curry32
SW Naito Parkway & Arthur222
SW Naito Parkway & Harrison230
SW Clay & 1st1260
SW Clay & 3rd320
SW Clay & 5th4114
SW 6th & Columbia1042
SW 6th & Main28182
SW 6th & Taylor22157
SW 6th & Washington2160
SW 6th & Oak1036
SW 6th & Pine26
NW 6th & Couch329
NW 6th & Flanders113
NW 6th & Hoyt129
NW Irving & 5th231
North Terminal (Not A Stop)143
TOTAL INBOUND BOARDINGS: 1,042
It looks like the busiest two inbound stops are Oregon City TC and Lake Oswego TC. A significant group of riders coming from Oregon City deboards in Lake Oswego, but the majority stay on-board.
In fact, it could be argued that nearly as many Oregon City riders are using the #35 for a one-seat-ride into Portland as Lake Oswego Riders, at least that’s the current case.
– Bob R.
The 35G in North Portland is fairly heavily used at rush hour, (I ride it fairly regularly,) but most of the people get off in Downtown. By the time it crosses the MAX tracks downtown, (where I get off,) around 80% of the people that were on it at Rose Quarter have gotten off…
The 35G in North Portland used to be the 1G, and that was changed when the Transit Mall moved… I get the feeling the change had a lot more to do with the fact that the Vermont line was an easy route to not run up and down 3rd and 4th, where as the Greeley line wasn’t, than anything to do with through ridership…
http://trimet.org/fares/farelessmap.htm
“The 35G in North Portland used to be the 1G, and that was changed when the Transit Mall moved… I get the feeling the change had a lot more to do with the fact that the Vermont line was an easy route to not run up and down 3rd and 4th, where as the Greeley line wasn’t”
Its interesting that the managers never tell us why they are making these sort of changes, they just do it. They don’t ask for public comment either on this stuff.
I think it has more to do with productivity goals for bus operators than anything else.
If you look at the 20 line, it used to be split into two separate lines, 20/26, but somebody somewhere decided that they should make the whole thing one huge line.
Pretty stupid if you ask me. Does not facilitate customer service having a driver in the seat for that long.
Hooking the 35 to the 1 is also pretty stupid as far as i am concerned.
“The 35G in North Portland used to be the 1G, and that was changed when the Transit Mall moved… I get the feeling the change had a lot more to do with the fact that the Vermont line was an easy route to not run up and down 3rd and 4th, where as the Greeley line wasn’t”
This also happens to be a very good argument FOR the streetcar.
Once its in;
TRIMET can’t mess with it!
While I agree with the sentiment, I’m surprised to see this quote from an elected official:
My understanding is that, as an Environmental Impact Study, Metro is required to include more than one alternative in the alternatives analysis section (in addition to the no-build). They can designate the Streetcar mode as the locally-preferred alternative, however — correct?
So, while it may be a “waste of money” to study buses with relation to streetcar, it is required by law to study a *SOMETHING* in comparison to streetcar, correct?
Would she prefer to see full-fledged light rail studied as the comparison mode? Commuter rail? Something else entirely?
Metro is required to include more than one alternative in the alternatives analysis section
That’s true at the beginning of the Alternatives Analysis phase (the one we just completed). I believe that the options that advance from AA to EIS are at the option of the local governments.
Chris-
If you’re correct, then I believe she has an extremely valid point. She represents a local government. She doesn’t see the need to study the bus alternative any further. So why waste any further funding on studying it?
Although, the related question is, how much would it cost to perform an EIS for just the streetcar option alone, and what is the incremental cost of also studying enhanced bus during the EIS process?
It’s a political question. The Project Advisory Committee (the citizen committee) was very hard pressed to have anything like a coherent recommendation given the different interests of Johns Landing, Dunthorpe and LO folks in this process:
Johns Landing: Streetcar is great, but not next to our condos.
Dunthorpe: You want to put WHAT in our backyards?
LO: Build it!
The grand compromise was to include the bus option so Dunthorpe wouldn’t completely bolt. You can understand why Judie is not happy with that.
The steering committee of local officials that oversees this project (on which I am an alternate for the chair of the Loop committee – the steering committee oversees both AA processes) initially did NOT accept the Nebraska Streetcar terminus/enhanced bus option but after a full scale insurrection by the project committee, David Bragdon and Sam Adams conducted an intervention and got the steering committee to put it back in.
For the record, I voted in favor of re-including the enhanced bus option (even though I strongly favor a Streetcar to LO) on the basis that we have to respect the work of our citizen advisory committees (after all, I serve on a bunch of them).
“my guess is if the money is spent to build out the Streetcar to LO, it will be operated with enough frequency to provide the transit link in this corridor. The 35 will turn around at LO and return to Oregon City”
>>>> That’s right, Lenny: turn the 35 around at LO, and screw the riders by making them transfer where they didn’t have to before. This is exactly what I mean by the degradation of the transit system by rail projects around here.
As a practical matter, Judie Hammerstad has been on-board for the streetcar from the beginning. I doubt she ever thought considering other alternatives was really necessary.
Ross, I think you under-sell Judie’s involvement. It’s largely due to her leadership that the project got started.
I would also note that it will take until 2009 to assemble the staff and budget for the EIS (many of the folks who will be required are working on the Milwaukie LRT EIS). I have not yet seen a budget estimate for the EIS.
There are also still tricky politics around the Trail component of the project. If planning for the trail (or at least pieces of it) does not happen at the same time as the transit piece, there will be more issues.
This is exactly what I mean by the degradation of the transit system by rail projects around here.
A perfect example in a lot of ways. The alternatives are sitting on a bus caught in traffic or use streetcar with its own right-of-way. Some people may hate transfers enough to stay on the bus, but I think most would choose the faster ride on streetcar.
Moreovev, if you look at the stop counts above, you will notice 179 people got on at the Oregon City transit center and another 158 in Lake Oswego. Aren’t most of those going to be transfers. So bus service doesn’t eliminate transfers for many people anyway. The question is whether you transfer to a different bus or to streetcar.
“If you look at the 20 line, it used to be split into two separate lines, 20/26, but somebody somewhere decided that they should make the whole thing one huge line.”
>>>> When I first moved to Portland in 2001, I lived right near Gateway TC, and used to take the #26 to go over to the Library on 122nd. It was one of those dismally unproductive MAX feeder lines, with usually few people on the bus. So when the Red Line opened, it was combined with the #20. Likewise for the #24; it was combined with the #77.
So much for how great MAX is for attracting riders to the transit system.
“So much for how great MAX is for attracting riders to the transit system.”
I thought the feeder lines were supposedly forcing large numbers of people to transfer to MAX. Now you’re telling us that the feeder lines are hardly utilized and aren’t attracting riders. So much for the “forced transfer” theory of high light rail ridership.
A question that needs to be asked when facing the potential of introducing a transfer into an existing service is how convenient those transfers will be. Will the Lake Oswego station, should it require a transfer for Oregon City riders, feature same-platform transfers? (Buses on one side of an island and streetcars on another, for example?) Will the transfer facility feature ample shelters and wind screens?
Beyond that, does the introduction of a streetcar service on dedicated ROW, with presumably greater schedule reliability and shorter trip times, combined with transit-oriented development, contribute to an increase in ridership which is greater than the number of people potentially inconvenienced by the introduction of a transfer for riders from outlying areas?
– Bob R.
Ross, I think you under-sell Judie’s involvement. It’s largely due to her leadership that the project got started.
I didn’t intend to. My point really was that she has never been neutral, so its not really surprising she thinks its a waste of money to look at other alternatives.
“I thought the feeder lines were supposedly forcing large numbers of people to transfer to MAX. Now you’re telling us that the feeder lines are hardly utilized and aren’t attracting riders. So much for the “forced transfer” theory of high light rail ridership.”
>>>> Let me clarify this. Trimet would like to force a lot of people to transfer to MAX by designing bus routes to feed MAX. But it has been very obvious that this policy has been a big bust, just as evidenced by what it did to the 24 and 26 in Sept. 2001. It seems that riders have stayed away in droves, as when I see the loads on the feeder buses when I go to Wash. County.
It seems that riders have stayed away in droves, as when I see the loads on the feeder buses when I go to Wash. County.
They have always been largely empty. There is a reason those bus lines are feeders – because you have to consolidate several of them to get a full bus, muchless a full MAX train. Every time a Max line has opened there has been a big bump in new transit usage.
There are people who don’t like to transfer. And there are express buses that served a small number of riders very well that have been eliminated. But overall MAX has had a tremendously powerful, positive impact on the Portland region.
Al M: The streetcar option makes sense for this area because the traffic on 43 is horrendous!
According to a TriMet Transportation Planning document that shows on-time performance for each fixed-route bus, the 35-Macadam route had an 87% on-time performance for the Winter of 2005/2006. 4% of the time it was early, 10% late.
This made it TriMet’s 13th best performing route, bested only by (from 1st to 12th) the 60, 37, 23, 87, 53, 63, 85, 86, 46, 22, 99 and 61.
In other words, the 35 is the BEST PERFORMING NON-PEAK SERVICE BUS OUT OF DOWNTOWN as every other bus is a rush-hour bus, a feeder, and/or does not serve downtown. (It’s hard to make the 60 Leahy Road late!)
In comparison, my bus the 12-Barbur is the FIFTH WORST PERFORMING BUS (with only the now-cancelled 95, the 157, the 84 and the 66 off worse.) Since the 95 has been cancelled the 12 becomes the FOURTH worst performing bus.
Matthew: The TIP says that 35 is slated to become frequent service in the not too distant future… (The TIP also says that is only has 25 BR/VH compared to the system average of 32, and compared to most frequent service routes in the 40s…)
This should be justification enough to cancel any further planning. The 12 line carries far more passengers than the 35 and is already a Frequent Service route. Clearly the ridership on the 35 isn’t there (I believe more than one person has stated that ridership enhancements should match demand, therefore the 35 does not exhibit the demand that other routes have).
It should also be noted that according to the 2008 TIP, (Chapter 5, pages 55-64) that the 35-Macadam is now only a “tier 2 priority” for frequent service; that the line 76 which was supposed to have been made a Frequent Service line in 2007 according to prior editions of the TIP is essentially on ice, that no new Frequent Service bus lines have been added since the 57-Forest Grove was made frequent service in September 2004 (yes, that was three and a half years ago!).
So, while it may be a “waste of money” to study buses with relation to streetcar, it is required by law to study a *SOMETHING* in comparison to streetcar, correct?
If the Mayor of Lake Oswego wants to fully fund the project she is welcome to explain to her constituents how she is spending their money.
In so long that MY taxpayer dollars are going to help fund this project, I want a study to show the cost of an enhanced bus alternative (or a no-build alternative which means nothing done).
The idea that busses cannot improve ridership or transit quality is bunk; it’s disproved each and every day in cities like Seattle and even Vancouver, BC. It is only TriMet’s failure to provide quality bus service that leaves many Portland area residents thinking that bus service in general is poor; when if they were given quality service they may feel otherwise.
They have always been largely empty. There is a reason those bus lines are feeders – because you have to consolidate several of them to get a full bus, muchless a full MAX train. Every time a Max line has opened there has been a big bump in new transit usage
Yes, and according to ODOT records every time a MAX line opened the ADT on the adjacent freeway spiked upwards as well. Is that also a “MAX Success Story – more traffic on the freeways?”
The reason the feeders are “empty” (a wonderful anti-bus statement) is because the feeders don’t serve ridership in a significant way. Why would someone park at a park-and-ride lot, wait up to 15 minutes for MAX, ride MAX a short distance, just to wait up to 30 minutes for a bus (that only takes a few minutes) to get to work? The market for the feeders is very small.
The idea that “you have to consolidate several of them to get a full bus” is not the point – the point of the feeder is to make it convenient for MAX riders to get to off-MAX destinations. If we are going to match transit service to demand, let’s get back on-topic – 35-Macadam service isn’t even a frequent service route, so there is no reason to expand service — in fact given that Bob stated that there are only 1,042 inbound boardings in a weekday, TriMet only needs to operate 13 inbound trips a day (based upon the capacity of a New Flyer D40LF (TriMet 2000, 2200-2300, 2500-2800 series bus of 82 passengers).
13 trips is equal to running service at (leaving Oregon City TC):
6:00, 6:30, 7:00, 7:30, 8:00, 9:00
3:00, 3:30, 4:00, 4:30, 5:00, 5:30, 6:00
Clearly there is a benefit towards providing regular service even if it means not operating a route at capacity (else even MAX would fail the test, because a recent Oregonian article showed that reverse-commute MAX trips often operated with a handful of passengers onboard a two-car train; and virtually every express bus run (61, 65, 66, 92, 94, 99) deadhead at the end of their run without making a revenue trip.
———-
The ONLY valid reason for extending the Streetcar is to make use of an existing right-of-way (which even I believe is a good idea) and frankly I do support running the Streetcar to Taylors Ferry Road (to the Willamette Park/OPB buidling) as it would improve service; while converting the 35, 36 and 43 routes to limited stop/express service north of Taylors Ferry Road. But so long as the ridership on the existing transit route is nowhere near “high capacity” transit levels, I fail to see why Metro is focusing so much attention on this one line while completely ignoring other routes (like the 12, but also lines like the 33, 57 and 72) that have much higher ridership, and also have problems that are affecting the current transit service. I guess Metro is taking a cue from the City of Portland – let’s “build more infrastructure” while existing infrastructure is allowed to deterioriate.
Fast service between Portland and Lake Oswego? Ha… Not if it continues with its existing design used between PSU and South Waterfront.
The single-track fiasco south of PSU, which was unable to be double-track due to adjacent property owners refusing to give up a piece, will now include a MAX crossing into the mix. On top of that, there’s the slow crawling as the tracks weave in and out around the Marquam bridge columns.
Please, to whoever is designing the route, make it a smooth and quick 35-40 mph run. That’s all.
chris fussell, that parcel you are talking about will be redeveloped with the streetcar cutting diagonally through it at least thats the plan that I’ve heard many times. i agree though the trackage between by psu and near the south waterfront leaves a lot to be desired.
this is why i am very concerned with having trackage run on macadam. on macadam the traffic will slow the streetcar enough but it will be slowed even more by having to make the sharp turns required to jog over to Macadam and then back to the WST RoW.
what could be done to the 12 other than articulated buses? theres no parallel right of way to run LRT on unless you consider the existing red line which hits downtown, hollywood and parkrose-sumner. and its pretty clear sandy has no room for exclusive transit lanes, bus or rail.
sure there are busier corridors than the WST line but its a publicly owned rail line that is seperate from traffic, it makes a lot of sense to me to capitalize on that. there has been a modest investment made in the last 20 years keeping the line open particularly the trestles.
Chris –
Welcome to PortlandTransport – I’ve enjoyed your former web site devoted to Portland-area transit.
– Bob R.
“The single-track fiasco south of PSU, which was unable to be double-track due to adjacent property owners refusing to give up a piece” …
Chris –
This was an item of discussion at the Portland Streetcar CAC a few months ago. The block is slated to be redeveloped with two triangular buildings and the streetcar ROW running diagonally through the middle of the property.
At the very least, this will be a single-track ROW through the property and retention of the current in-street trackage. This would eliminate the sharp curve (and therefore slow travel) of the current temporary alignment in one direction of travel, and reduce wait periods if two streetcars are approaching the same route segment from opposite directions.
However, the Streetcar CAC made a formal recommendation to the PDC and the developer that a dual-track ROW through the property (known as “Block 153”) be adopted to improve travel times and eliminate some rider confusion which may result from a split alignment.
– Bob R.
The double track option sounds great, I hope they can do that. Afterall it would clear up the sidewalks on two sides of the block.
When the original alignment was planned years ago was there much thought to having the streetcar have more two way on one street operation as opposed to running one way on a 2 street couplet as is the case with 10th/11th and Lovejoy/Northrup?
“However, the Streetcar CAC made a formal recommendation to the PDC and the developer that a dual-track ROW through the property (known as “Block 153″) be adopted to improve travel times and eliminate some rider confusion which may result from a split alignment.”
Is that the area over by the old Blind Onion Pizza place where the Chinese Restaurant used to be?
“So when the Red Line opened, it was combined with the #20. Likewise for the #24; it was combined with the #77.”
Right! And now both lines join the 12 line as examples of bus driver torture by trimet.
““““““““““““`
“fixed-route bus, the 35-Macadam route had an 87% on-time performance for the Winter of”
Uh, Hmmm;
Well if that’s true, and I have no reason to disbelieve you, then that does kinda change things about this project.
As in, if there is already RELIABLE bus service, FORGET IT!
Put resources somewhere else that needs it!
““““““““““““““““`
Is that the area over by the old Blind Onion Pizza place where the Chinese Restaurant used to be?
It is the block bounded by 4th, 5th, Harrison and Montgomery.
Google Map
Using the aerial view in the map, above, you can see how the current 2-track operation on Harrison squeezes down to one track to go around this block.
There is also the recent addition of a MAX trackway on 5th, not shown in the image.
Here is a link to the PDC information page for the project: http://www.pdc.us/ura/south-park-blocks/block153.asp
Currently it appears construction is slated to start sometime in 2009, and who knows what the anticipated real estate slump might do to the schedule. I suspect that any streetcar changes wouldn’t come until at least mid-2010, especially since the transit mall will have fully reopened in late 2009, and it would be disruptive to reintroduce construction right away to this part of the mall.
– Bob R.
I’m sure this will be a shock to most of you, but,
the resources of government go to the place that has the most powerful political connections.
DUH!
In other words, swanky Lake Oswego, will get a fancy new streetcar while the folks along east sandy blvd. wait out in that mud puddle they call a sidewalk for a bus that might never show up.
And so the world turns…….
Ah it is that area then. I was wondering who came up with such a dunce idea. I didn’t realize what had happened there, just figured something odd had gone on.
Good to see it will be fixed at some point. Unfortunately that’s another what, 1-5 million bucks to fix? I kinda hope it doesn’t cost that much. Another case of do it right, or don’t do it and wait.
Another case of do it right, or don’t do it and wait.
I’ve found that it’s more a question of never build anything because you’re waiting to get agreement to do the “right” thing.
As Charlie Hales used to say, “Let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the good.”
A good point Chris, but in turn. That was an obviously bad connection/routing point. Seriously, why couldn’t something have been worked out then? I mean, the city owns the street. They own the sidewalk too. So what stopped them? People have no real right to the sidewalk or street anymore, the city is the arbiter of all those things. Not that I support it, but it is the fact.
The streetcar could have been run down the apposing street VERY easily.
Adron, all the options were examined. The “right” answer was to go through the middle of a privately owned block. While it was apparent the block would redevelop, the timing was not right. So the current workaround was chosen after balancing cost and operational issues. It is by necessity a compromise, but it was the best compromise available at the time.
As Bob’s ridership data shows there are not many riders between n. LO and s. Johns Landing. With the new Sellwood bridge, the 41 can be re-routed to come up Macadam to give local service there. Maybe the condo owners just need to be bought out.
This project will be a real cat-fight between Dunthorpe and LO/West Linn, not to mention those John’s Landing condo owners.
Eric, reliability is good on the 35 because the traffic delays on Macadam are written into the schedule…the trip takes longer in the peaks. The Barbur line needs an advocate like the mayor of LO.
Nick, feeder buses just don’t run frequently enough to work; better to ride a bike. Express buses are loved by those who ride between two destinations, but from a public resources viewpoint they are very expensive as they serve no one in between. C-Tran is a great example of this. At least now they raised prices to better meet costs, but those buses do nothing for folks who work in the Interstate Corridor, Swan Island, Rivergate, Lower Albina, the destinations for most cross river commuters.
The virtue of MAX is it is reliable, pretty fast AND make intermediate stops, not to mention that people who will not go near a bus love to ride it.
“Eric, reliability is good on the 35 because the traffic delays on Macadam are written into the schedule…the trip takes longer in the peaks.”
Oh, you mean they scheduled it right?
HOLY CRAP, I’m gonna faint!
“The single-track fiasco south of PSU, which was unable to be double-track due to adjacent property owners refusing to give up a piece, will now include a MAX crossing into the mix. On top of that, there’s the slow crawling as the tracks weave in and out around the Marquam bridge columns.”
>>>> And get ready for more of this Toonerville single tracking if this thing is actually extended to LO.
As for slow crawling, that describes Portland Streetcar in general.
“Please, to whoever is designing the route, make it a smooth and quick 35-40 mph run. That’s all.”
>>>> DREAM ON, CHRIS. I think that they like it slow, because it reminds them of an old-fashioned trolley line (but without the charm).
Could someone please post the Trimet document that ranks bus routes for some sort of measurable performance?
Someone who drives a bus should know that they have more time in the schedule for the peak hour trip than the non-peak. Every rider knows this.
Good grief.
Don’t confuse Streetcar in its current incarnation operating in traffic downtown with the proposed Streetcar to LO. It will have its own ROW once it leaves SoWa (unless the condo owners win) and will make good time. Those cars can run as fast as 50 mph if the track allows.
Only a real busophile can not like a streetcar with its own ROW vs a bus stuck in traffic.
“Eric, reliability is good on the 35 because the traffic delays on Macadam are written into the schedule…the trip takes longer in the peaks. The Barbur line needs an advocate like the mayor of LO.”
It is more than that, because they could simply write the 12B schedule slower than it is now, and get better on time performance, (at the expense of waiting a little longer at a few stops most of the time.) I wouldn’t advocate that for a frequent service line, I think the buses should just run as fast as possible, (assuming that it doesn’t lead to bunching.)
However, the problem isn’t just that the roads are jammed up at rush hour so it takes longer, it is that they are jammed up different amounts each day. (One day there is a wreck that closes a lane, the next day there isn’t, sort of thing.) Anything on that road is going to have the same schedule reliably issues, it doesn’t matter if they run artics or mini-buses, or run every 5 minutes or every half hour, as long as the road doesn’t permit reliable travel times, the buses aren’t going to have reliable travel times. And that is the point: the roads that the 35M travel on have more reliable travel times than the ones that the 12B travel on…
That isn’t to say there aren’t some things you can do to help the buses on those roads, but the solutions are limited as long as the buses stay on those roads…
The best solution to move the buses off those roads, into a dedicated right of way, (changing them into trains is optional, but tends to be cheaper in the end, so that tends to happen at the same time.) For the 35M, that right of way exists, it needs some work, but most of the money would come out of federal coffers. For the 12B, that right of way doesn’t. It would be very expensive to buy and build, and a lot of that money would come out of TriMet’s budget, (probably having a negative impact on operations.) So even though the 35M doesn’t need that fix as much as the 12B does, the 35M is getting that fix because it is far cheaper…
At some point, they are going to have to fix the 12B, and TriMet has plans to do it eventually, it just hasn’t been done yet. And yes, I agree with Lenny: If the mayor of Tigard made the Barbur MAX a priority, it would probably happen a lot faster than it is now.
“Those cars can run as fast as 50 mph if the track allows.”
Can they? I’ve heard a rumor, (and I can’t tell you if it is true or not,) that said they were limited to 35 mph by a governor because they hadn’t passed some FRA crash test. Obviously, if we are going to be building and selling them in this state, it might make sense to crash one of them so that it can pass the test and get a higher top speed, but when we first bought them, it made perfect sense to put a governor in them since they were unlikely to ever see 35 mph in mixed traffic anyways…
[Moderator: Inflammatory portions removed.]
In any case, the solution is the same:
http://portlandtransport.com/archives/2007/12/sorting_out_far.html#c317451
“If you don’t find his contributions constructive, I would suggest you refrain from responding to them.”
In other words, don’t feed the trolls. It is good advice,
From an old specs document that I have, it lists the Skoda streetcar’s “design speed” as 75 km/h and “maximum operating speed” as 31 mph. (75 km/h = 46.6mph) I don’t know if the “maximum operating speed” is simply an operational rule, or forced by a governor.
(I also don’t know if the newest 3 cars, which are very similar but manufactured in another facility through a different vendor relationship, have precisely the same limitations.)
The United Streetcar, LLC. product specifications page (United Streetcar is the division of Oregon Iron Works building the new prototype car) says this about speed: “Maximum speed 70 km/h (44 mi/h)”, with no other caveats.
[Moderator: Quoted inflammatory remark removed.]
Please don’t stray into personally-directed remark territory, even when phrased as a series of possibilities. Thanks.
“Only a real busophile can not like a streetcar with its own ROW vs a bus stuck in traffic.”
>>>> And only a real hardcore railfan could like the Portland Toonerville Trolley operation.
Remember Lenny, you were the one who once posted something to the effect of “I just don’t like buses.” So how can you be objective about this topic?
Well, having grown up on the NYC subways and heavy rail to upstate NY, I just happen to like trains, where appropriate. Just not the “snail rail” trolley operations (streetcar AND MAX), that we have here in Portland
Just not the “snail rail” trolley operations
A record 10,800+ average weekday boardings in the most recent streetcar count would seem to refute your criticism about appropriateness to the application.
“A record 10,800+ average weekday boardings in the most recent streetcar count would seem to refute your criticism about appropriateness to the application.”
>>>> Sure, if you can ride for free…
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3sv7d_wish_news
Why don’t they have mass transit jet boats to shuttle people back and forth all over the valley? The environmentalists probably wouldn’t be too happy but the river is already polluted with so much crap (literally) what would a little exhaust hurt?
Why don’t they have mass transit jet boats to shuttle people back and forth all over the valley? The environmentalists probably wouldn’t be too happy but the river is already polluted with so much crap (literally) what would a little exhaust hurt?
this actually has been studied before, and you guessed right the environmental impact would be too great, but more for the reason of park and rides on the banks. plus the connectivity isn’t so great from the river banks to the transit malls.
however, i think kayaking or canoing to work would be great fun. there just needs to be facilities to store your boat downtown.
The Barbur line needs an advocate like the mayor of LO.
The Lake Oswego Streetcar is going to serve exactly TWO cities: Portland, and Lake Oswego.
And Dunthorpe, an unincorporated community that refuses to pay for city services (OK, they get to pay TriMet property tax, but how many businesses (including self-employed persons) are located in Dunthrope to pay TriMet’s payroll tax?)
Hardly a “regional” priority.
The 12-Barbur Boulevard bus line serves:
Portland,
Tigard,
King City,
Tualatin,
Sherwood
(And to be fair, Bull Mountain, one of those pesky anti-city unincorporated communities.)
Within Portland:
The Lake Oswego Streetcar route will serve the following Portland neighborhood:
Corbett-Terwilliger-Lair Hill
12 serves:
Corbett-Terwilliger-Lair Hill
Homestead
Hillsdale
Multnomah
West Portland Park
Far Southwest
AND borders:
South Burlingame
Markham
Crestwood
Exactly who should advocate for the 12 line? The cities, that explicitly don’t operate transit service (because TriMet does)? The neighborhood associations, that explicitly don’t operate transit service (because TriMet does)? The Counties?
The advocate for the 12 line SHOULD be Fred Hansen. He, as TriMet’s General Manager, should be the one promoting public transportation even on a lowly old bus. If he doesn’t want the job he’s welcome to propose removing my neighborhood from TriMet’s service district so that the cities can operate the bus service. Of course by doing so he walks away from my property tax revenues that pay off the bonds that he had to sell to pay for his light rail lines.
Erik,
I agree #12 needs much improvement and while they’re at it, bring it to Mac!
Pardon me for commenting on a thread that’s nearing eight months old…
but given that this is essentially an interurban line (though connecting two cities within the same metropolitan area), wouldn’t MAX be a better long-term solution down the Willamette Shoreline than the streetcar? The line is a former heavy-rail line, so should have no problem supporting MAX trains; either solution requires (re)electrification of the line, and MAX trains can operate faster–an important consideration given that much of the line is single-tracked.
Use of the streetcar might be a good short-term solution, as the southern terminus of the streetcar abuts the northern terminus of the ROW in question. Eventually, MAX will pass through SOWA, though, at which point conversion of the line to MAX might make sense. Many assume that the Milwaukie extension (currently dubbed the “orange line” in planning circles) will be an extension of the Yellow Line once in operation; a MAX line to LO would make sense as an extension of the green line.
(And one other interesting question–given that Lake Oswego seems to desire this line so much–might they support further extension of the line–in whatever form–beyond downtown LO? Country Club Road to Boones Ferry to Durham/Bridgeport Village, connecting with WES at some point?
And speaking of WES: Has anyone ever considered running a new heavy rail spur along SW Teton (or a similar corridor) in Tualatin, to provide a new connection between the old OE line to Salem (on which WES will run), and the branch line to Sherwood, rougly along this corridor? The line would run through largely industrial territory; a wye could even be built at the northern end increasing the flexibility of the system. If that were done, a huge chunk of the existing WES line, roughly from downtown Tualatin to downtown Tigard (including one of the two rail bridges across the Tualatin River), would no longer be needed for shipping (other than possibly shippers along the line), and could be electrified–permitting an eventual replacement of WES with MAX service. Trains headed from Wilsonville to Beaverton would simply use the new spur to the LO/Sherwood line, take the left fork at the Lake Grove wye, and be on their way.
The problem with the applicability of MAX v. streetcar isn’t the ability of the Willamette Shore Line ROW to support heavier rail; it’s that the market is very small and almost certainly will come no where close to supplying the 10,700 daily rides that Metro conjured up in justifying the current project. (Ridership on line 35 is hovering around 2,000 or so and has been for years.)
Lake Oswego simply is not growing (actually went down last year according to the PSU Population Center) and is graying rapidly with fewer and fewer of us actually commuting to Portland. Our schools have seen their enrollments decline steadily even though they’re among the best in the state. West Linn is growing faster, but from a much lower base, and more oriented with I-205 than Highway 43.
A rail connection between Milwaukie and Tualatin or Tigard through LO might make sense, especially given that so much Sellwood Bridge traffic uses Taylors Ferry rather than continuing north on Macadam.