In Sunday’s Oregonian, Jim Mayer has a provocative article about the future of Light Rail. There’s also an accompanying diagram (PDF, 1.4M) of potential future rail expansion opportunities. The article recounts the system’s successes, including carrying 25% of east/west commuters to and from downtown and the impact on compact development.
The real success story has been along the westside Blue Line. Sunset Magazine this year called the 260-acre Orenco Station neighborhood built around MAX the nation’s “best new ‘burb.’ ”
But the article goes on to cover the challenges of a capital intensive mode in the context of declining Federal participation.
So this may be an opportune time to examine strategic approaches to increasing transit use in the region. As a starting point for discussion, let me throw out a few generic strategies:
- Stay the course: MAX is our high-capacity backbone and we need to keep creatively finding the dollars to build out the network.
- Maximize the financial leverage: put our scarce dollars into bus service to bring transit to more destinations and in more corridors.
- Think local: Streetcar has proven to be effective at fostering compact development (at 1/3 the cost per mile of MAX). Let’s build more Streetcar lines to capture local trips with less emphasis on commuting into and out of downtown.
What’s your strategy?
35 responses to “The Future of Light Rail”
In the diagram, why do the “Non riders”, “Bus only”, and “MAX only” percentages for each county add to 100%? Is the Oregonian suggesting that no one rides both bus and MAX?
TriMet’s current strategy is “All of the above…” as it should be, (except that Streetcar is lead by Streetcar Inc., the City, etc.)…complete the MAX network, increase the number of Frequent Service bus lines and expand Streetcar.
There is no question that the Milwaukie line will have to be funded with a property tax levy, hence TriMet will have a chance to touch base with the voters, and the debate should and will be robust. Likewise any expansion across the Columbia despite being folded into any Columbia River Crossing proposal will need local funding from Clack/Vancouver, and hence a vote there as well.
If these two extensions win approval, the way will be easier for Barbur and Powell/Foster. If they lose, look for more buses and maybe the Yellow Line to Jantzen Beach, but no more.
jsp – I know Jim reads this blog occassionally, perhaps he’ll answer the diagram question.
Why not take a poll of Streetcar riders to see if they think a MAX would be an improvement. The bigggest problem with the MAX lines (and I am not quibbling about East, West or even I-205) is the distance one has to go to get to it! I realize that encouraging development along these routes is the antidote.
I mentioned this to Brian Newman who suggested people would take buses to the terminus of the Milwaukie MAX. Then they will have to wait to transfer, and then the destination is only within that corridor, unless the rider makes yet another transfer. I’ve suggested for the Milwaukie connection a line northward from Milwaukie that splits off at Tacoma with a connection over the Sellwood bridge to the WestShore route. Presto, you suddenly have three destinations, instead of one. So you wouldn’t need a long MAX train (traveling on only one route), but you could have smaller Streetcars going more directions, and that would still adequately meet the demand And the routes would still be to high traffic areas. Why would not someone from Milwaukie travel to a job at OHSu or SOWA just as much as downtown Portland? I think this reasoning would apply to other areas being considerd for MAX.
In other words, I think a criss-crossing network, or lines connecting major population nodes– would be more effctive than lines radiating out from city center. After all, is everyone going to downtown Portland?. As a modest example, the infrequently suggested Milwaukie to Lake Oswego car, mostly an excursion, could also give folks at the big retirement center two places to go.
Rail of any sort is a gamble—that the vehicle will be enough of a lure to get people out of cars, since we will never pass laws to require it–(I don’t think.) Therefore, if one gambling option is much cheaper I would take that one.
Also a word on subsidies: I bet the Oregonian figures (such as 1.18 subsidy per boarding in Portland) is subsidization of the operating cost, not the capital cost. Again I would refer to the St Louis Reserve Bank study:
http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2004/c/pages/light_rail.html
Also on Highways: There are a lot of vested interest groups. Any program that creates careers or by which corporations realize a profit can result in vested interests. Pushing a federally funded transit system will naturally result in the left out group hollering for their interests. But perhaps some new construction is needed if VMT, congestion and pollution are reduced. I have made some previous suggestions, that I think would kill two birds with one stone.
If Democrats regain some political control–and they lost for some good reasons– we should see more efforts at alternative fuel and fuel saving—thus salvaging the private automobile for a few more decades, as an American icon.
When it comes to a regional transit vote, we are thinking too small if we just focus on Milwaukie. Maybe we need an omnibus package that would fund transit projects throughout the region and includes light rail, streetcar and rapid bus.
Just for fun, how would you spend $1.2 billion? How would you craft a transit package for the 2008 election that appeals to voters throughout the region?
If we assume that 40% of the funds come from a regional vote, it would require a property tax levy of $0.40 per $1,000 (if my math is correct). Here is the breakdown:
$1.2 billion total
50% from feds ($600 million)
40% from regional vote ($480 million)
10% from other: state lottery, private, MTIP, etc. ($120 million)
Potential projects:
– Milwaukie/SE Portland light rail
– Hillsboro to Forest Grove light rail
– Yellow line LRT extension to Janzen Beach
– Eastside streetcar
– Lake Oswego streetcar
– Streetcar from Gresham to Mt Hood Comm College
– Barbur Blvd rapid bus
– Powell/Foster rapid bus
– Commuter rail between Sherwood and Milwaukie (going over the “forgotten bridge” at Lake Oswego)
What else? We can’t fund all of these projects with just $1.2 billion so you need to make choices. The purpose of this exercise is to craft a package that appeals to the region, so be sure to include both Portland and suburban projects. Also, for the sake of simplicity, assume that paying for operations is not an issue and that Clark County still wont play.
We can call it the “People’s Transit Plan” or the “Peak Oil Transit Plan.”
** Disclaimer: this is an exercise, not a Metro or TriMet proposal. Thanks.
Brian –
I’d try and work suburb-to-suburb rapid bus in there somehow, basically forming a ring to connect the outer suburbs, perhaps funded on an experimental basis to determine demand patterns.
– Bob R.
Good idea Bob. I know Jim Howell has been talking about a rapid bus line that links Clackamas Town Center with Washington Square via Milwaukie TC, Barbur TC, and Tigard TC. A commuter rail line between Sherwood and Milwaukie would also provide suburb-to-suburb connections but would only make sense if it connected to light rail in Milwaukie so rider could continue to travel into Portland.
Brian –
Regarding commuter rail, I’m skeptical. I know it works great in some places (CalTrain, for example), but the proposal for Washington County is quite expensive on a per-passenger basis.
While I’ve been quite vocal of my stance that MAX-style light rail is cost effective compared to busways for _equivalent levels of service_, my feelings toward Commuter Rail are the opposite… I believe these needs could be more effectively met using express bus service and appropriate ROW upgrades.
I’ve been thinking about your exercise in allocating transit plans within a $1.2billion project… would you be willing to change the exercise and make it a package of transportation packages to benefit all modes? You’d have to raise the pricetag a lot, but it might garner more support to include things like Sellwood Bridge replacement, completing the 217/I-5 interchange upgrade, creating designated bikeways, and (dare I mention it), paving the unpaved residential streets in the area where supported by local property owners.
– Bob R.
Hmmm… looks like another Metro Councilor has caught the Portland Transport bug!
Brian, a couple of reality check questions:
1) The conventional wisdom has been the such a package would have to be bundled with some road improvements as well to be acceptable to voters across the region. Are you suggesting voters are ready to go for a transit-only package?
2) Where would you suggest we would find the dollars to operate the new components of the system? Boosting the payroll tax, something else?
1.2 Billion? Dollars? At the rate of inflation the Milwaukie MAX is seeing ($515million to $550 million in the past year) $1.2 Billion might be what it will cost to extend it to Oregon City after the first leg is completed in 2014. But since the downtown mall is gearing up, for at least $200 million, we might as well go all the way to Oregon City since that is the real purpose of the DT mall. So that brings that MAX route to about 2 billion.
Perhaps my figures are not accurate. But I would like to see a figure on the extensions of Milwaukie MAX–to Oregon City and to Clackamas. That would be the only proper analysis; a 5.5 mile route just doesn’t cut it. Also, previously I said that this route goes through a lot of undevelopable land; a Brooklyn resident objected. But, from Tacoma St. to where it finally gets past Crystal Springs is 1.3 miles; then there are the rail yards (will people want to live there?) .6 miles; then it also crosses the Willamette. Only about half of that route has serious residential development potential, if that.
However, we could carefully schedule the streetcar routes so one can go, without transfers, from Clackamas to Northwest Portland; Milwaukie to South Waterfront; or Lake Oswego (maybe even Sherwood) to Lloyd District. I can even see going from Oregon City to Vancouver, if Front Ave is eventually opened up. I can see a lot of possibilities, with major junctures, frequent service, high usage, greater coverage and less transferring.
I’ve been a reader of blogs for a while, but I finally decided to plunge in.
Chris – the conventional wisdom is probably correct, packaging transit with roads would appeal to more voters. However, due to your initial post, I thought it would be fun to brainstorm the transit piece since that generates the most entusiasm from the readers of your blog. I believe that the mechanics of a ballot measure would force a road/transit measure into two questions since gas taxes and vehicle registration fees can’t be spent on transit.
That said, if gas prices continue to increase rapidly, a transit-only package may fair better than we think.
As far as operations, it is a real challenge to overcome if we truly want to expand the system. TriMet doesnt have the money to operate anything beyond their existing commitments to the I-205 line and WA County Commuter Rail. Even the two streetcar lines now being studied will require new revenue (at least that is my impression). I am open to any new ideas to fund operations costs.
I should be doing other work, but….
Ron, the streetcar is great for dense urban neighborhoods where most people walk to the stops, as in NW Portland and the Pearl. It is not appropriate for a major trunk line like McLoughlin Blvd that is fed by multiple feeder bus lines and park-and-rides.
The Milwaukie Transit Center is the second busiest suburban transit center in the region after Beaverton. It is really the hub that serves all of Clackamas County east of the river. Right now, it serves 10 bus lines, including four (99, 33, 32, 31) that continue from Miwlaukie to downtown Portland. Even if you replace those four bus lines with two streetcars lines that go to Portland, there just isnt the capacity to absorb all of those riders while still leaving room for the riders in Portland to board too. I can just imagine the residents of Brooklyn watching as car after car goes by without room to board.
Don’t get me wrong, I love the streetcar, but it wont replace MAX in major suburban corridors with heavy ridership. The only reason it might work to Lake Oswego is that the Hwy 43 corridor serves a small fraction of the riders compared to McLoughlin.
Welcome to the blogosphere, Brian, get ready for it to take over your life :-)
So shouldn’t we be asking voters for capital and operating together? It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me to ask them to build something we’re not sure we can pay to run. I know we can’t get federal match without demonstrating the ability to operate for 20 years.
I think Brian is right about his capacity assessments of MAX vs. Streetcar for the Milwaukie corridor.
The #33 bus alone has 5300+ daily boardings.
The #31 adds 2000+, the #32 has 1300 and the #99 has 700+.
That’s 9300+ boardings which could benefit from MAX from day one, and that transportation backbone allows for more feeder routes to operate within suburban areas.
Speaking on the issue of feeder buses and transfers, as someone who grew up in that area, and who is quite familiar with the #33 especially, I would gladly trade the “one seat ride” on the current 33 for a transfer to smooth, comfortable rail in Milwaukie. Frequently “one seat ride” on the bus translates to “one cramped standing position” and being a standee on a bus is a far worse fate than being a standee on a train, especially if you have a bag or briefcase to deal with.
– Bob R.
Chris, you killjoy. You’re taking all of the fun out of my post :)
Don’t confuse my simple attempt to generate brainstorming with an actual, fully-baked proposal that addresses the operations issue. I dont have the answer but I hope that we can generate some ideas through the RTP process.
Wow, this article was the first time I’ve seen a serious discussion of light rail in the Powell/Foster corridor. (Did I miss something?)
This corridor has been a subject of much debate, here and elsewhere, for some time now. However, I think this is a good proposal. While at first blush, this would seem to be a natural streetcar route… the more you think about it, the more you realize that, no, light rail out Powell/Foster makes the most sense.
Why?
Two reasons:
1. Capacity
2. Development Potential
1. Combined, that corridor already produces enough capacity on its bus lines to overload a streetcar-only solution. Two-car MAX trains would be the only solution for upgrading transit. The 14-Hawthorne could make a little loop out of 50th, Foster and 52nd, and then turn back around and increase headways down Hawthorne Blvd. (Or, a streetcar could do the same thing, as a Hawthorne-only streetcar line would probably have the capacity handle Hawthorne-only loads.)
2. Development potential. Both Powell and Foster have a *lot* of underdeveloped land, including large parking lots, strip malls, etc., which would be ripe for redevelopment into TODs. Light Rail could be the catalyst to add some significant density to these neighborhoods, and in doing so, raise the general standard of living by bringing the customers to make more and higher-quality services (shops, etc.) available to the neighborhood populations.
Wow. What a great proposal. And finally, it could be funded by a Multnomah-county-only referendum, which would most likely pass.
Three cheers for Tri-Met on the Powell/Foster LRT idea!
“The Milwaukie Transit Center is the second busiest suburban transit center in the region after Beaverton.”
Busy-ness can be neasured in number of vehicles, but I think number of riders would be more accurate, especially if you think many of them would be condensed down to one route.
“That’s 9300+ boardings which could benefit from MAX from day one, and that transportation backbone allows for more feeder routes to operate within suburban areas.”
The biggest number of boardings are at rush hour; Streetcar headway could be reduced at this time. Yes, I use MAX; I got on one from PDX at 5 pm with about six other people. I see the others during the day– largely empty. Is this the best use–Invest in a big system that runs largely empty most of the day?
I certainly would propose greater streetcar frequency at peak travel times. You know, a lot of our buses are pretty empty,too, most of the day. And with people possesing passes and various discounts I’m sure they are subsidized as well. With my injury I have had to ride the: 70, (just a few people); the 14, (full at rush hour) and contemplated taking the 33 to Emmanuel (but got a ride instead). So are passengers from Milwaukie and other points going to keep going to Downtown Portland, or will they start taking jobs along the Macadam corridor–which I think is just getting started–and which also goes to downtown and Northwest? I’ve been saying that high density development will continue to spread northward along Front Ave (because of the river frontage); and perhaps on the other bank as well, where U of P happens to be located, and even westward over in Vancouver. So why not get on one ride that goes the whole distance?
Out of curiosity:
1. How would one get from Clackamas Co. to PDX–without a lot of transfers?
2. Would a MAX lure discretionary riders out of their cars?
3. What will the remaining components of the Milwaukie MAX cost?
4. What will METRO do if the voters say “no”
5. What will METRO do to get the voters to say yes to the extra billions in 2014…
6. What will activists do to get all the neighborhoods needed to agree to an extensive MAX system?
7. What if there is another tax protest movement ala Bill Sizemore, whom I thank for my lower property tax bill, every year.
8. What if Brooklyn residents want to go somewhere else besides a 2 mile run to downtown?
9. What if the bicycle craze ala Hawthorne BV spreads to Brooklyn?
10. Could feeder routes be reduced, or even eliminated, if there is a denser network of Streetcar routes? I am not speaking solely to the Clackamas Co. area; that is a very spread out area and so probably would discourage walking. But, hey, we’re all into health, now, aren’t we? So, let’s walk.
I’m getting tired of this discussion….
Welcome, Brian. I saw you present a brief slide show to the Rivergrove NA in Lake O; we’re neighbors.
The thing that struck me most about your presentation was that most of the land for residential expansion is on the Milwaukie/Clackamas/et al east side, but that most of the new jobs are likelier to be on the Beaverton/Hillsboro west.
In light of that projection, what will be the best way to address transpo needs to bring commuters back and forth between those two areas? Is it prudent to consider a Portland bypass? The Wilsonville-Beave rail will help only a little. Could you conceive of something that ran roughly along 205 to about Stafford, then cut across Tualatin/Tigard and northwestward to Hillsboro/Forest Grove? Or would you run it up 43 to hook up with the LO line, and then over to Kruse Way before heading towards the Beav?
(others besides Brian chime in of course…)
Hi Torridjoe. That’s a tough challenge. I think in the short term it will require analysis of a few east-west rapid bus corridors, one along the north edge of the county and one along I-205/217 with service to major transit centers off the freeway.
As I mentioned above, I also like Jim Howell’s idea of a rapid bus corridor between Clackamas Town Center and Washington Square (via JCB Blvd, Tacoma, Taylors Ferry, Barbur and 217).
I doubt that a Sherwood-Milwaukie commuter rail makes sense now, but it might in the future once the Milwaukie LRT and Wilsonville-Beaverton commuter rail lines are built so people can transfer between lines.
torridjoe: The thing that struck me most about your presentation was that most of the land for residential expansion is on the Milwaukie/Clackamas/et al east side, but that most of the new jobs are likelier to be on the Beaverton/Hillsboro west.
In light of that projection, what will be the best way to address transpo needs to bring commuters back and forth between those two areas?
JK: Good God!!!
The planners are putting people on the other side of town from the jobs!!
I thought one goal of planning was to give us all a better life. A cross town commute does not qualify.
This is planning for waste of peoples time, waste of fuel and increased pollution.
Can anyone justify this?
Thanks
JK
(who receives no income form city planning, city policy, city projects or smart growth)
JK –
The planners are not deliberately putting jobs out in Wash Co. and residences in Clackamas County. In fact, much has been discussed about ways to provide incentives for a more balanced mix.
– Bob R.
The conventional wisdom has been the such a package would have to be bundled with some road improvements as well to be acceptable to voters across the region.
I am not sure the conventional wisdom is wrong, but as far as I know it has never been tested. I think transit advocates ought to be very wary of a regional “consensus” transportation package.
People tend to vote against bad projects and assume the good ones will survive in any case. That is not entirely unreasonable. There are built in “no” votes who think any transit investment is a bad and dislike rail investments in particular. Likewise, there are people who are unlikely to vote for any new freeways. If you add those two groups together it doesn’t take many people convinced that specific projects are bad or just a waste of money to doom whatever package you develop.
So there are advantages to having a package that is primarily transit impovements, if it is not portrayed as an alternative to road improvements. All the peak oil talk works fine with people already converted, but it sounds like anti-auto propaganda to people who aren’t convinced it is inevitable.
On the other hand, I think major new investments in transit that improve access to immportant new destinations for those already served by the existing system would be very popular regardless of whether roads were included.
I would remind Brian that CLF’s People’s Transportation Plan called for bus rapid transit to Clackamas County. As someone responsible for advocating that intially in the aftermath of the South-North rejection, it quickly became apparent that it had most of the problems associated with light rail and few benefits to offset them. I think much the same thing may happen on Powell-Foster and Barbur Boulevard.
I also think a rail connection between Tigard or Washington Square and downtown on light rail along Barbur would add to the value of the Washington County Commuter rail. It would also provide access for people who live anywhere on the light rail line to southwest Portland destinations.
Powell-Foster Boulevard light rail is going to require closing a lot of intersections, damaging the network in Southeast Portland. I think the impact of that needs to be carefully considered. Making system improvements to speed bus speeds might make more sense.
I think Powell/Foster LRT should be elevated along the corridor to avoid traffic and allow it to go faster. Plus this route would be parallel to the high speed portion of the Banfield line.
Taking Milwaukie MAX all the way to Oregon City makes a lot of sense. Its a shame this wasnt done 35 years ago. Afterall this is one of TriMet’s busiest corridors. This would likely run via McLoughlin or the old Portland Traction RoW?
Is there an official MAX light rail full-build-out master plan map? Or is it really the same as what was published in the Oregonian yesterday?
I think what was in the paper is pretty much the long-term vision of the planners.
Powell-Foster Boulevard light rail is going to require closing a lot of intersections, damaging the network in Southeast Portland.
This doesn’t make sense to me. I would think they would just have to improve the signaling. What did they do in Interstate? Did they have to close intersections?
Along interstate, all major arterials and several neighborhood streets have traffic signals where they can cross the tracks, make left turns, etc. MAX generally has signal priority.
Smaller residential streets may not cross the tracks. However, U-Turns are allowed at signals (with designated signage) allowing the residential streets to be reached from the north or south direction.
Special pedestrian crossings (several with signals) are also provided at regular intervals between major intersections.
This is all very similar to the original Blue Line to Gresham where it runs in the median of Burnside. I would imaging that Powell/foster would work along those lines as well.
Here is a link to an interactive Google Map which shows which streets go through:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=portland,+or&ll=45.551218,-122.681172&spn=0.005184,0.01339&t=h&om=1
– Bob R.
I think what was in the paper is pretty much the long-term vision of the planners.
I am still disturbed by the lack of a ring line to connect all those loose radial lines. I wish we could have a good discussion about the master-planning efforts, or the lack of effort. I agree that rail is not always the answer but I think we should have some sort of dialog about it.
To get the thoughts rolling, there’s a very good personal web page everyone should take a look at, with several examples for Portland:
http://userfs.cec.wustl.edu/~adj1/max/wholeplan.htm
Here’s a few examples of other rail systems (mostly subways). None of them are on the scale of Portland, they’re just examples.
Vienna, Austria – Somewhat radial, but easy to navigate:
The easiest transit system I’ve used of anywhere, simple quick, extensive streetcars:
http://vienna.sashaguides.com/C3256CE8003FA7C4/0/C2CB0DBBF0E5D984C3256DB4003E8383/$file/map_subway.gif
Moscow, radial lines, but with a very important circle line:
http://www.samsung.ru/off-line/support/services/moscow-metro-map-a.gif
Now an example of what not to do, Chicago. Only radial lines, great if you live downtown, useless if you don’t:
http://www.optionsclearing.com/images/career/subway_map.gif
Not exactly useless, but you get my point. Let’s get this conversation going!
You left out London with its key circular line.
Of course, Vienna’s Ringstrasse is the inspiration for the inner loop that Portland Streetcar is trying to build.
“That said, if gas prices continue to increase rapidly, a transit-only package may fair better than we think.”
If gas prices continue to rise than the private industry will have more vested interest and a real business case to be involved. Then all of us can actually just get jobs expanding mass transit all over the region, and the slow pace of expansion that is currently being undertaken by Metro and Trimet can just duck out, and do what it should be doing, regulate commerce and dictate property rights.
But then again, even after it’s been proven for 100+ years of American History and Texas is starting to prove that method of funding again I would wonder whether Portland is so paranoid about Private Entities (i.e. Trusts, Corporations, Businesses) taking over what should rightfully be one of their industries in the first place.
That way users can pay for it, and non-users can spend their cash on something else.
A person can dream of free markets, and a truly industrial pace of expansion and private industry features and service levels right?
Brian Newman Says:
“”””As I mentioned above, I also like Jim Howell’s idea of a rapid bus corridor between Clackamas Town Center and Washington Square (via JCB Blvd, Tacoma, Taylors Ferry, Barbur and 217)””””
Then perhaps you’d better get to work finding a way to replace the Sellwood Bridge.
Which currently no longer allows buses or trucks because of it’s dilapidated condition?
I wonder how in the world you hope to address traffic congestion?
If it is Metro’s intention to simply ignore congestion as you lean on “Peak Oil”
and other props for more rail I believe you should come clean and make that clear to the voting public.
What’s the point in congestion cost studies and other endless studies if you have no intention of providing any real additional traffic capacity, ever?
Is it just smoke?
Steve, Metro is working towards a Sellwood repair or replacement (Multnomah County is the lead agency). In the last MTIP round, Metro put a sizable investment into the preliminary engineering.
The missing partner on the Sellwood is the State of Oregon, because the trucking lobby kept the bridge out of the OTIA bills.
I don’t think Sellwood neighborhood would object to a rapid bus transit from North Clackamas County to Washington County. A certain amount of traffic would be healthy for businesses and is also why I have been favorable to a streetcar connection to the potential West Shore line.
What we don’t want is a four lane thoroughfare with wide shoulders, higher speed limits, and more freight traffic, replacing Tacoma St. and the two lane bridge. So far Multnomah County has promised us that the Sellwood Bridge wil remain at two lanes, but we do intend to augment pedestrian and bicycle traffic, which now are extremely limited. But I do not now, nor will I ever propose that any other established neighborhood accept a major new thoughfare that is out of character with what is already there.
The reason I have suggested another crossing is that for thirteen miles or so there is no way to get over the Willamette until you get all the way down to Oregon City. That’s a big detour for anyone wanting to get from the Oak Grove region to the Lake Grove-Tualatin region, and that applies to point further east and west. Rail advocates easily see the usage of the “forgotten railway” which crosses near the north of both Oak Grove and Lake Oswego; this unforunately has a very long ramp on the eastside, since it is coming off a high bluff. Perhaps some two level multimodal viaduct would be a consideration—and would keep motorized traffic buried out of sight–but I understand there are complicated safety considerations with traffic going through tunnels. I would alternatively propose a simple, attractive two lane bridge fron Oak Grove Bv. to Foothills Dr., that would unite two communities.
Ron Swaren
Sellwoood Moreland Improvement League board member
It’s gratifying to see so much commentary and speculation inspired by my story. I’d like to address a couple of points raised here about the article. First, the chart on the trimet rider survey dealing with county of residence is tough to decipher. The way to read this is: non-riders, 42% Multnomah County, 34% Washington Co, 24% Clackamas; Bus only, 71% Multnomah, 17% Washington, 12% clackamas; MAX only, 44% Multnomah, 49% Washington, 7% Clackamas.
Second, I don’t beleive Tri-Met has a total build-out MAX map. Frankly, I don’t think they see the system as ever being finished. Fred Hansen had a nice quote on this subject that I ended up not using: “We’re not going to build the perfect clock and walk away from it.”
I think Jim’s last point is an important one. This generation will not finish the system and neither will the next generations. So decisions need to provide opportunities and flexibility so we don’t force bad choices on the future and to provide as many good choices as possible. Its more a chess game than an engineering process.
Its possible the transportation system of the future will be individual computer controlled transit vehicles where people have their private space towed by common carriers from place to place. I say that, not because I believe it, but because it is hard to know what will happen in 50 years. We started the Interstate system 50 years ago.
According to Derrik Quenzer’s chart, linked to above, Boston’s cost efficiency towers above the others: $1.37 in fares collected per trip, at an impressively small $0.15 subsidy per boarding. Perhaps we should all study how Boston does it?
Well, it’s funny, because Boston’s MBTA is known as one of the most heavily-subsidized systems in the country. Well, the numbers Quenzer cites don’t seem to hold up:
A Boston token only costs $1.25. True, on the “D” trolley branch, a trip costs $1.50 or $3.00 instead of the one token; but that’s just one branch among four branches and a trunk. It’s not even the most heavily traveled branch. Consider also that on the maybe-60% of the system that’s west of the Kenmore/Symphony fare zone, outbound trips are free. The free outbound fare policy includes that more-expensive “D” branch. And like all those other cities, Boston has monthly pass options which must drastically reduce fare intake.
Even if fare evasion is zero, it’s just really unlikely that Boston collects $1.37 per boarding. It makes me wonder if Quenzer’s sources in general are inaccurate, if he misinterprets them, or if the Boston thing is something like a typo.