The region has been gradually building out our high capacity transit (HCT) system based on a plan that is now about a quarter century old, and much of that vision has been fulfilled. So what happens now?
Metro and TriMet have undertaken a new High Capacity Transit system plan effort, and I’ve been involved peripherally on one of the advisory panels. I wanted to highlight a couple of interesting documents that are now available on Metro’s web site:
- Preliminary Screening Memo (PDF, 13M) – The first report on a wide range of quantitative factors that will go into corridor selection. If provides interesting insights on a variety of levels.
- “World Class” Consultant’s Presentation (PDF, 3.7M) – one of the more interesting discussions in the advisory panel, this PowerPoint looks at what makes HCT successful across the world. My big take-away was the importance of integration with land use. Here in our region, LRT has generally been built where right-of-way could be acquired most inexpensively (both in dollars and political costs). We then try to develop land uses along the line at station areas.
The lesson from other cities seems to be that HCT is most successful when it serves existing land uses – and this often requires converting auto right-of-way to dedicated transit lanes (i.e., less light the Blue line and more like Interstate).
Food for thought… (and thanks to project staff for putting these documents online).
40 responses to “What Next?”
the biggest problem with Interstate-based rail is that it’s incredibly boring to look at, from a passenger point of view (assuming it’s above ground).
That Power Point presentation is amazing. I just wish I could have sat through it with the presumed verbal explanation.
You might ask Metro, I think they made an audio recording of the meeting.
Chris Smith wrote: The lesson from other cities seems to be that HCT is most successful when it serves existing land uses
This seems to contradict the concept of building new HCT routes that don’t serve existing land uses (which are often served by existing transit routes).
Does this mean that Metro is going to kill the “Eastside Streetcar” in favor of upgrading existing bus routes (and existing land uses) with better transit (including streetcar lines)?
Does this mean that Metro is going to kill the “Eastside Streetcar” in favor of upgrading existing bus routes (and existing land uses) with better transit (including streetcar lines)?
Streetcar is NOT High Capacity Transit. It could probably be configured to be HCT (the proposed Lake Oswego line has some of these characteristics). But as applied on the existing line and the proposed Loop, it plays a circulator function and is probably better classified as what some have termed “development-oriented transit”.
The major distinction is trip length and trip purpose. HCT is designed to server longer trips, often commute-oriented. Streetcar as currently applied is design to serve shorter trips with a greater variety of trip purposes, of which a minority are commute trips.
Peter Says:
“the biggest problem with Interstate-based rail is that it’s incredibly boring to look at, from a passenger point of view (assuming it’s above ground).”
I think you’re missing Chris’s point here. He’s actually referring to our MAX Yellow line, which is called the Interstate Line since it runs down the middle of Interstate Avenue, a surface arterial in North Portland. His point was that putting rail on existing car lanes of commercial streets works better with existing land use patterns than putting right of way wherever it’s cheapest.
I really like that there’s a map on page 8 of the Preliminary Screening Memo. Most of all, I think Portland should focus on getting Vancouver to scrap the CRC, and work on a MAX/highway (not freeway, but road-based traffic) expansion along the corridors identified 43B, 43D, part of 46B, and 55. Directly connecting downtown Vancouver to Beaverton and the Blue line MAX seems like a great idea.
Around the MAX line along N Portland Rd and over the rail corridor you could fit a 3 lane (2 one lanes and a center turn) or 4 lane California expressway (no driveways, 45-50 mph speed limit, but traffic lights instead of interchanges.)
If needed, interchange at US-30 due to grade separation for the MAX line. Tunnel with the MAX, a larger bore tunnel doesn’t cost that much more.
It adds a second route to Jantzen Beach, a safer pass through between St John’s and the western suburbs, connects the Blue line MAX at Beaverton to Vancouver, and a connector to the Interstate MAX could avoid the $1.4 billion CRC MAX bridge.
43B could be lift bridges and accomplish this, as well as relieving the need for an Interstate Bridge for a bit.
42A/42B is interesting as a multi-modal corridor as well. It could be an alternate route from I-84 to SR-14 in an emergency, as well as could provide an east side MAX connection to Vancouver.
As has been previously mentioned here, the Glenn Jackson wasn’t designed to hold a transit corridor, so maybe connecting 181st to 164th isn’t a bad idea. 164th has a lot of adjacent undeveloped or under-developed land nearby, and is becoming an employment center of Vancouver.
Add in a Mill Plain LRT connector and you’ve got a good Vancouver Loop that serves medical, retail and apartments. Sounds good to me.
I think both route parameters are valid, whether fast transit along some isolated corridor, or less fast (but not too slow) through urban boulevards like Interstate. Transit connections between light rail and bus lines must be considered. A rail line alone will only serve trips nearby its stations. But not most trips require transfers. The circulator concept is an advanced transit design. Transit users find them reliable.
Good one, Chris, on the “Development Oriented Transit” acronym. You’re a naughty boy if you think the big boys will let it stand. “It must be crushed!” roared the lords of hotroddery.
Good one, Chris, on the “Development Oriented Transit” acronym. You’re a naughty boy if you think the big boys will let it stand.
Actually it’s a term that gets used with increasing frequency. The complete phrase gets over 1,300 hits on Google.
Sorry Bob, the acronym DOT is sacrosanct.
Ahhh… I see what you mean.
Having had an opportunity to read this presentation, well, I’m impressed.
For once, ALL modes of local high capacity transit are discussed.
Now, I bet Metro and TriMet will conveniently ignore the first 24 pages of it.
I’ve been calling upon Metro, TriMet and the City of Portland to implement all of these changes, whether as BRT or simply enhancements to TriMet’s current, mid-20th century bus service. TriMet could, today, implement the example found on page 20 (Nantes, France) on the first three miles of Barbur Boulevard out of downtown Portland or on McLoughlin Boulevard between the Hawthorne Bridge and downtown Milwaukie. (Strangely enough, Portland could have implemented it on Interstate Avenue between Albina and the Steel Bridge, too.)
The vehicles described on page 17 – they were never considered “BRT” vehicles. Those are standard, run-of-the-mill London buses. Yet the introduction of those buses in Portland would mean huge increases in transit capacity, as well as provide segregation of “local” and “through” passengers (the longer-distance passengers would likely head upstairs, while the short-hoppers would just stand downstairs for their few-minute trip).
And page 6…that has NOTHING to do with high-capacity transit, it’s about transit in general. The same is true with page 7, 9-13. Look at that transit center on page 13 – can anyone claim a transit center in Portland to be that attractive? And with enclosed waiting areas, an abundance of lighting, and located near pedestrian friendly businesses (unlike many transit centers here in the U.S. but certainly in Portland, which tend to be “out of way, out of sight”.)
One other observation is that in many of the tram/streetcar/light rail photographs following, there is a prominent feature – a bus. How often can you find TriMet/CoP proudly proclaiming how easy it is to transfer between the Streetcar and a TriMet bus? (I really love that transfer at Harrison & Naito – it’s a fun place to be on a rainy day.)
Chris Smith wrote: Streetcar is NOT High Capacity Transit.
Also, the “Screening Results” document seems to strongly prefer the “Eastside Connector” which is the same as the Eastside Streetcar loop…am I not correct there?
I would strongly disagree with many of the assumptions it makes about the Barbur Boulevard corridor…I certainly see a lot of “minorities” on my bus line; and I see a lot of standing-room only buses, particularly outside of the rush hour, all the way to Barbur Boulevard TC.
Also, the “Screening Results” document seems to strongly prefer the “Eastside Connector” which is the same as the Eastside Streetcar loop…am I not correct there?
No, if you zoom the map in, you’ll see that “49” the “Eastside Connector” is closer to the river (it’s the dark green line – the Loop is the dotted black line).
The Eastside Connector is the piece of the LRT system that Jim Howell has been advocating for as an alternative to taking the Milwaukie line through downtown. I’m not surprised that it scores well, Jim usually has pretty good data behind his ideas.
For purposes of the HCT analysis, I believe that the Streetcar Loop is assumed to have been completed.
I have to commend TriMet, Metro, and the city on using existing right of way as much as possible. They Yellow Line of course was in street, but I do appreciate that. Overall I’ve noticed Portland (the Interstates being a major exception) generally tries not to steal (oops, I mean imminent domain) to clear and implement right of way. Mucho dibs to them for the efforts.
As for HCT, I’ll be glad when or if TriMet gets something figured out ASAP instead of next century to meet demand on many of the primary arterials like the #15, #9, #4, and others. I don’t care if it is BRT, Streetcar, or whatever… I’m at the point I just want something so I can actually get on a bus with regular frequency. It is getting to a point where I might either have to start walking or driving. If that happens, the city can write off a creative class’s income tax – because I just as well move to a more car friendly state/city if I’m damned to using a car.
Yes. Can we get light rail in Southeast now, please? Outside of downtown and NW, SE has the highest density neighborhoods in the state of Oregon.
Building MAX down freeways and out in the suburbs is fucking moronic when you can have huge ridership numbers with streetcar or MAX where the people are.
I don’t get why these planners are so damned dense.
Adron Says:
I have to commend TriMet, Metro, and the city on using existing right of way as much as possible.
Speaking of Jim Howell . . . a long time ago, Jim proposed using existing right of way down through Milwaukie, as well as recycling existing railcars (DMUs?) as a quick and inexpensive alternative to building out LRT. I do not think the proposed Milwaukie route includes much existing right of way, but I may have that wrong.
zilfondel Says:
Building MAX down freeways and out in the suburbs is fucking moronic when you can have huge ridership numbers with streetcar or MAX where the people are.
I don’t get why these planners are so damned dense.
Nearly 20 years ago, a senior planner explained to me that the region would never build LRT to Milwaukie because too many people already lived there. Uh . . . the prevailing opinion at the time was that LRT should create demand by creating development. Regions that were already developed, like SE Portland and Milwaukie, didn’t need trains. I don’t think that opinion holds anymore.
Building MAX down freeways and out in the suburbs is fucking moronic when you can have huge ridership numbers with streetcar or MAX where the people are.
Which raises a fundamental question about whether we should be building HCT at all. In the ‘scenario’ models that Metro has been running for the Regional Transportation Plan, the aggressive HCT build-out scenario actually increases average commute distances compared to some of the other scenarios.
Essentially, HCT facilitates long trips, and therefore housing choices that are further from employment (and since even people who commute on HCT drive sometime, either to work or for other trip purposes – there is collateral increase in VMT).
I think it’s fair to ask the question of whether we should be concentrating transit investments on facilitating land use patterns and lifestyles that are centered on short trips. This of course is more of the Streetcar model.
Now I’m not saying we should abandon LRT (or even BRT) for a 100% Streetcar strategy, but I think we should analyze HCT with our eyes open.
Yes. Can we get light rail in Southeast now, please?
Take a look at page 11 of the planning document. Corridors 9, 10A, 10B, 29A, 29B, in addition to the already planned Clackamas and Milwaukee lines.
Also, is anyone else getting file I/O errors past about page 25? I’ve tried about 20 times now and the download keeps stopping early (usually around 7 mb.)
Can we get light rail in Southeast now, please? … you can have huge ridership numbers with streetcar or MAX where the people are.
Foster and/or Powell through SE have been designated potential High-Capacity Transit corridors.
I participated in the Streetcar System Plan SE District working group, and this was something participants were asked to keep in mind.
The working group came up with a number of corridor ideas in SE, not just for streetcar, but with suggestions for enhanced bus service (trolleybuses on some routes which had factors which precluded streetcar service, for example.) The final recommendations document is not quite out yet, but will be later this month.
So “the planners” (which includes dozens of members of the public, in the case of the streetcar system plan) are working on new transit options for SE.
Also, is anyone else getting file I/O errors past about page 25? I’ve tried about 20 times now and the download keeps stopping early (usually around 7 mb.)
I had to try 3 or 4 times to get the presentation document in its entirety.
You use IE? And you a tech-y guy?
barbur, oregon city, downtown vancouver still need to be the priorities for HCT imo.
i’d like to see a yellow line branch at lombard to st. johns
the barbur line with tunnel to serve ohsu (11T) is an interesting idea. as is the cross region commuter rail (the 29s on the map) from clackamas-milwaukie-LO-tualatin-beaverton
i think anything in the 217 corridor other than WES commuter rail needs to directly hit washington square, kruse way and bridgeport village, in fact a light rail branch from beaverton to tualatin in this corridor would be ideal. then WES from wilsonville/Salem and any other future commuter rail line (like from Newberg) could reroute at tualatin and go via LO to Milwaukie instead of to Beaverton.
i’m kind of surprised the springwater corridor wasnt studied at all. while i realize it isnt the densest corridor, it is a full right of way through SE portland to gresham that once had rail service and surely there’d be room for both rail and a new path. springwater corridor would probably be a split between serving an existing population and allowing for new infill development around the new line.
You use IE? And you a tech-y guy?
I use the Big 3 (IE, FireFox, Safari) on both Windows and Mac platforms… gotta use ’em all for compatibility testing. Probably will have to add Chrome to that list someday, but I don’t get much call for Opera issues anymore.
Chris –
Is there a HCT document at Metro which provides more detail on the actual proposed improvements/corridors we see tested in the Preliminary Screening Memo? I’d be curious to know more details, for example, about the Lloyd Center to Goose Hollow subway idea and the segment listed only as “Steel Bridge Improvements”.
“Yes. Can we get light rail in Southeast now, please?
…
I don’t get why these planners are so damned dense.”
Well let’s see here, there is a MAX line under construction right now, in SE. It will open for service in 9 months. The next line to be built will go to Milwaukie, routed right through…wait for it…SE!
Who’s dense?
It is nice to see 43C (St Johns to downtown via NW,) score well. The North Portland Streetcar District Working Group thought that better service there (be is more runs on the 17, or a Rapid Streetcar) was a good idea, and a good way to deal with the mobility vs accessibility trade off of the streetcar on Lombard.
Jeff F. wrote: Jim proposed using existing right of way down through Milwaukie, as well as recycling existing railcars (DMUs?) as a quick and inexpensive alternative to building out LRT. I do not think the proposed Milwaukie route includes much existing right of way
I believe that this HCT study actually states that Jim Howell’s DMU route (one that even I have supported in the past as a low-cost rail project connecting both town centers AND other transit modes) was ranked low in ridership potential. This would be the Milwaukie-Lake Oswego-Tualatin-Sherwood route.
Unlike WES, “time of day” separation between freight and passenger operations is quite feasible due to the lack of freight operations, and as a result European spec, low-floor DMUs could operate on this route. However, there are several significant bridges that would need upgraded/replaced (including the Willamette River structure) which would come at high cost; relieved slightly by the reliance upon transit centers, rather than expensive park-and-ride facilities.
The Milwaukie LRT project was originally intended to use the Union Pacific (former Southern Pacific) right-of-way, but in the end only a short stretch of UP right-of-way will be used, between Brooklyn and Milwaukie.
Chris Smith wrote: I think it’s fair to ask the question of whether we should be concentrating transit investments on facilitating land use patterns and lifestyles that are centered on short trips. This of course is more of the Streetcar model.
It’s simple. The agency that is planning this is called “Metro”.
Not the “City of Portland”.
If Metro wants to only plan for an area within three miles of downtown Portland, that’s fine, but it also has a responsibility to roll up its service district and responsibilities – AND it’s tax collections – to that area.
As long as Metro is going to touch Sherwood, Metro had better serve Sherwood. People are going to live in Sherwood, whether or not the snotty people in the Pearl like it. Get used to it.
(Sherwood can also be replaced with Forest Grove, Cornelius, Troutdale, Wood Village, Fairview, Gresham, Boring, Happy Valley, Damascus, Oregon City, Wilsonville, Tualatin, and West Linn.)
Chris Smith wrote: you’ll see that “49” the “Eastside Connector” is closer to the river (it’s the dark green line,
So now we are planning not one, not two, but THREE separate rail lines, within a VERY short distance of each other?
What’s the difference between that, and having three freeways within a half-mile distance of each other? Talk about wasteful duplication of services…and it’s being PLANNED.
For purposes of the HCT analysis, I believe that the Streetcar Loop is assumed to have been completed.
Wait, I thought Streetcar wasn’t HCT. Thanks for clarifying that it is…and thanks for clarifying that these plans make assumptions about certain investments – and dis-investments.
For purposes of the HCT analysis, I believe that the Streetcar Loop is assumed to have been completed.
Wait, I thought Streetcar wasn’t HCT. Thanks for clarifying that it is…and thanks for clarifying that these plans make assumptions about certain investments – and dis-investments.
I’m NOT saying that it is. I’m just saying the HCT analysis assumes there will be Streetcar service on the Loop, just as it assumes that there will be on the existing Streetcar line on the west side. It’s a ‘pre-existing condition’, not something to be evaluated.
Of course the plan makes this assumption – this investment has been approved by all the local governments involved – Portland, Multnomah County, TriMet and Metro. Should we assume they will all change their minds after final engineering has begun?
When I met with HCT staff I urged two immediate improvements: owl service on the existing MAX lines and faster service between Lloyd Center and Goose Hollow. Otherwise, I would guess that Barbur and Powell/Foster are the next best candidates for HCT, and I would lay odd that when more analysis is done, LRT will win out over BRT on the numbers just as it did in the Milwaukie corridor. In the meantime it seems like some upgrades could be done with bus service…Limited service with larger vehicles, signal pre-emption in the peak hours, “station” like facilities at Limited stops (until LRT comes).
HCT along side freeways…Banfield, & soon, McLaughlin… seriously compromise TOD as who wants to live next to a roaring, stinking freeway? Interstate Avenue should be the model…good existing ridership with potential for a ton more as development occurs near but not right next to the freeway.
But the whole point of the Streetcar network is to maximize infill in the core of the region; shorten and eliminate trips by car all together, not because we hate cars, but because we love to walk. NE Broadway and Sandy…to mention two possible routes…could accommodate a ton of new 6 story mixed use projects without a problem.
For those of you interested in the discussions in the advisory group, Metro tells me that the video and audio from the meetings are online at:
http://www.metro-region.org/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=29020#thinktank
Chris Smith wrote: Should we assume they will all change their minds after final engineering has begun?
A lot of people are calling for that for the CRC…so why is it OK for the CRC but not the Eastside Streetcar Loop?
Chris Smith wrote: Should we assume they will all change their minds after final engineering has begun?
A lot of people are calling for that for the CRC…so why is it OK for the CRC but not the Eastside Streetcar Loop?
There is no comparison between the two. The Streetcar Loop has cleared all the requirements in the federal NEPA process and the local matching funds for the project have been committed by the local governments.
The CRC is only at the Draft EIS phase. They still need to do all the analysis in the final EIS stage and no government at any level has committed a penny towards construction.
Apples and Oranges.
HCT along side freeways…Banfield, & soon, McLaughlin… seriously compromise TOD as who wants to live next to a roaring, stinking freeway?
People who drive like easy access to freeways. Sometimes couples are stuck in a situation where one drives, but one can take transit. That and TOD usually involves commercial development, which enjoys providing for auto access as well.
Try to look at it as adding value to those freeways, it makes it more worthwhile that they’re there. They might roar and stink, but they’re a HCT corridor also.
I just noticed page 24:
Projects in Development:
Portland to Milwaukie ? New Starts $850.60 TriMet OR?3 PE/Final Design/Construction New Starts
Columbia River Crossing ? New Starts $750.00 ODOT/WSDOT OR?3/WA?3 PE/Final Design/Construction New Starts
So, $1.6 billion for transit. In just two projects.
CRC, at $0.4 billion is really so tragic? Oh that $0.75 billion for the CRC is just for the LRT part. No freeway, no cars, no buses. Just trains.
But, yeah… Mega-project = CRC.
D’oh, that should have been in Regional Priorities. Sorry, too many tabs in Firefox.
I found the Preliminary Screening Memo hard to look at and confusing. But the biggest disappointment was the repetition of “project” and “corridor” rather than “system.” How do these projects fit together with the rest of the transit system? Can we have better transfers between bus and LRT? Can the bus system feed the LRT? Take corridor 43 (Vancouver to Union Station) for example. If C-Tran had a bus transfer center near the Vancouver Amtrak Depot, and there was a frequent shuttle between there and Portland Union Station, the travel time would be about 12 minutes, versus 28-30 minutes from Downtown Vancouver to OldTown/ChinaTown on Max. But it works only if it is part of a system.
Same with Lenny’s suggestion for Owl service, which I completely support. Unfortunately, given current LRT maintenance practices, it is much more cost-effective to run Owl service by bus, and shut down the LRT some time after midnight. However, to do justice to the service, there needs to be bus access to the stations built into the system design (obviously the Zoo station doesn’t need Owl service, but others do). Then the LRT can operate during hours when it is most cost-effective, yet still provide a complete transportation solution during off-hours, when bus travel times are not slowed by clogged streets.
Regarding Chris Smith’s suggestion that an extensive HCT system will increase VMT, I don’t think there is any empirical basis for this claim, which I have heard others make as well. Transit, and rail transit in particular, has a “multiplier” effect in terms of VMT reduction. In other words, for every car-mile that is directly replaced by a transit-passenger-mile, there are additional reductions in car usage related to land-use, car ownership, and other system effects. If HCT facilitates longer transit trips by being time-competitive with the auto, it will capture a greater mode share, reducing VMT directly and then even more through the “multiplier” effect. The idea that HCT (LRT) promotes sprawl or increases VMT may be a good sound bite, but I don’t believe there is any factual basis for it.
Doug Allen wrote: The idea that HCT (LRT) promotes sprawl or increases VMT may be a good sound bite, but I don’t believe there is any factual basis for it.
The entire area in the Quatama/Orenco area was undeveloped prior to the arrival of MAX, and the massive subsidies granted towards construction of those areas. Traffic generated by those developments required the widening of most area streets, including Cornelius Pass (widened from two to five lanes), Cornell Road (widened to five lanes), Evergreen Parkway (widened to five lanes), and numerous collector streets also widened to five lanes; a complete redesign of the Cornelius Pass interchange on the Sunset Highway; developed traffic growth on the Sunset Highway (easily documentable per ODOT records) requiring a widening of the Sunset Highway which is an on-going process (next phase – Cornell to Cornelius Pass Road).
Evidence has shown larger-than-normal increases in highway traffic on both I-84 and U.S. 26 after the opening of the adjacent MAX line – again, from easily obtainable ODOT records.
But the biggest disappointment was the repetition of “project” and “corridor” rather than “system.”
Something I agree with, with the continual millions given to Streetcar projects which have little regional transportation benefit but require regional transportation dollars; yet badly needed regional transit investments (i.e. improvements to the 12-Barbur Blvd. bus line) are given the shaft, simply because the bus isn’t as sexy as a Streetcar line.