The Transit Alternatives Analysis for the eastside is moving toward a recommendation on a “Locally Preferred Alternative” this summer. The recommendation will encompass both a modal choice (Streetcar vs. Bus in this case) and the alignment of streets to be used.
Following Wednesday evening’s public hearing (which in turn followed an open house last month and more than a year of meetings by a project advisory committee) Wade Nkruma reports in the Oregonian on the strong support for Streetcar.
59 responses to “Eastside Streetcar Shows Strong Support”
Is there any hope that a streetcar route might eventually go out Hawthorne, or Division, or Powell? The traffic congestion is quite bad in that near SE area and I have seen no plans for relief.
Michael, Commissioner Adams is gearing up for a city-wide rail plan, which I hope will explore these corridors. There is already a group advocating for a line from Lloyd District to Hollywood.
But we need to complete the central-city loop to use as the ‘hub’ for these ‘spokes’.
Why not extend this line south to Milwaukie? The proposed MAX route goes through 2 miles of undevelopable land, so where are the riders going to come from? (Huge park and ride lots in Milwaukie?–doubt it)
A streetcar could so down Milwaukie Ave. even across the Willamette to Lake Oswego and on Tacoma St., as well.
“Michael, Commissioner Adams is gearing up for a city-wide rail plan, which I hope will explore these corridors. There is already a group advocating for a line from Lloyd District to Hollywood.”
That is awesome. So is there intention to actually make this rail pay for itself as it did pre-1950s?
It would be nice to have it in all of the places it was in before… belmont, hawthorne, hollywood… etc., etc. I dread paying the prices for expansion with the current price of the streetcar though.
Is there any word on a price reduction from the locally manufactured car vs. the imported ones? Has anyone really tried to contact places like New Orleans who build their own cars or get Seimens to build one? Basic economic common sense would dictate that at 2.4 million a pop PDX payed way too much. New Orleans got 24 and payed about 800k a pop w/ handicap support (They would have been almost the same price as a bus without it).
Anyway, I am in favor of riding on steal rails into all those neighborhoods again instead of on an old nasty bus, but I dread the ballooned cost that PDX might have to pay in order to acheive these things.
Chris,
In Wade’s article Sue Pearce, from Hosford-Abernethy neighborhood, supports the streetcar for its “traffic calming.” Mike Bolliger, from the Central Eastside Industrial District (CEID), praises it as a “development tool.” I would hardly call that “Eastside Streetcar Shows Strong Support.”
I don’t see anyone arguing for this as a successful TRANSPORTATION tool for either our Hosford-Abernethy neighborhood OR for the CEID.
There has been NO substantive discussion at the neighhborhood level about the “options.” NO discussion of IMPROVED bus service (the only “option” being “no build”…keeping bus service the same). NO discussion of an electrified bus line…cheaper and buildable sooner, and raised as an option by Ray Polani at the “hearing” this week.
The loop calls for a bridge at Caruthers, currently unfunded, so the price tag is approaching a quarter of a billion dollars…and, from where I sit (on the overcrowded #14 line…where, actually, I usually stand), where’s the close-in neignborhoods getting ANYTHING out of this?
I’m not necessarily opposed to the streetcar here, but a quarter of a billion dollars is a lot to pay for “traffic calming” and a “development tool” that will lead to…what?
When the Hawthorne Bridge was refurbished, an extra $40,000 –if I remember right– went into extra strenghening of the roadway for an “eventual” streetcar line…to serve the inner SE, which isn’t even on anyone’s radar. THIS stretcar alignment, as proposed, doesn’t seem to serve the actual residents of SE, drops the Hawthorne bridge in favor of a whole new bridge, and may well be a great “development tool” but it sure doesn’t serve either our residents or the folks who might try to walk from this streetcar through the largely unsidewalked, potholed, and dangerous to get around in CEID.
Frank, the options being studied (including the bus option) were defined by a project advisory committee with strong representation from Buckman, HAND and the CEIC.
And I think it’s going to be a FANTASTIC transportation system :-)
Michael wrote: “Is there any hope that a streetcar route might eventually go out Hawthorne, or Division, or Powell?”
Michael, please allow me to use this opportunity to promote my idea for a Hawthorne streetcar alignment. :-)
Much of Hawthorne is pedestrian-intensive, but it is also heavy with automobile traffic, a frequent bus line, and has a good share of bicycle traffic.
These various modes have reached a tipping point, IMHO, where none functions particularly well.
Part of the problem is that the lanes are very narrow. A conventional transit bus is actually wider (mirror-to-mirror) than the 9′ lane right-of-way. This forces buses to weave into other vehicle lanes in order to avoid pedestrian/parked car/bicycle conflicts.
The existing Portland Streetcar system has relatively few pedestrian/parked car conflicts because its right-of-way is clearly delineated (tracks in the road, painted lines) and it never, ever, swerves into another lane.
A streetcar operating in the right-hand of Hawthorne (replacing the #14 bus) could provide frequent, high-quality service at the same frequency as the #14 and eliminate pedestrian (accessing parked cars) and automobile (lane boundary) conflicts. Further, noise and street-level pollution would be reduced.
The line could continue all the way out to Foster (as does the #14) and connect with the Green Line MAX station / Lents neighborhood.
I further propose that the right lane on Hawthorne be designated “local access, transit, and bikes”, while the left lane be designated for thru-traffic. Every few blocks, where there is a streetcar stop, a forced-right turn for autos would be introduced. This would keep traffic relatively light in the right lane, and speeds low enough to avoid conflicts with bicycles (bicycles would not be forced to turn right.)
– Bob R.
the options being studied (including the bus option) were defined by a project advisory committee with strong representation from Buckman, HAND and the CEIC
C’mon, Chris…Sue was our ONE representative from HAND (I’ve been on the HAND board the last two years), and she ALSO serves as our representative to the CEIC. Our HAND neighborhood association has NEVER discussed the “options” being discussed. The web site we were all pointed to so as to “learn more” did NOT have any information on the “options” until about 2 weeks ago.
There has been NO neighborhood discussion about these “options” (1,700 flyers went out to tens of thousands of residences and businesses..where?
Where is the “public” in this public process?
And what happened to the discussion of the Streetcar going up Hawthorne and serving the currently under-served residents…versus this being the next “development tool” to serve the next round of Transit-Oriented-Development condos (with their discounted SDCs and other subsidies)?
I like the idea of restricted access in the right-lane, but I have a few questions:
1) What is the width of the streetcar? Would it have enough clear zone to operate safely in a 9′ right-of-way. It seems that the fact that buses CAN swerve is beneficial in such a constrained environment.
2) What benefits does the streetcar provide that enhanced bus service, or trolley bus service wouldnt provide? The solution to people standing on the bus isn’t people standing on the streetcar, its running more buses.
4)Additionally, using buses would make the right-lane much more bike-friendly than would a streetcar and the accompanying rails.
5) How will the forced right-turns be enforced, but still allow transit vehicles to continue through?
6) Replacing the #14 with a streetcar would require eliminating the current “express to 39th” service, and would remove opportunities for future expansion of limited stop service.
Thanks for your Hawthorne streetcar support. One problem is bikes don’t work well on lanes shared with tracks. I know this from personal experience. How about a San Francisco MUNI model where the streetcars use the middle of the street with loading islands? (I forgot, we do that with MAX out on Burnside, don’t we?) A bike/car shared lane might work if the speed limit is radically reduced and more traffic calming techniques used.
The Hawthorne merchants need to get real, and real fast, if they want their neighborhood to maintain its friendly urban look and feel, and not turn into another 82nd Avenue of Rose(thorns)s. They must work to improve the bike and walkability or they are going to be the losers eventually. The charm of 5 years ago is fading. The noise and congestion is nearly overwhelming. In the most dense areas I have already seen some walkers abandon the overcrowded sidewalks and use the traffic lanes for short distances.
Michael –
I do not think there is sufficient ROW on Hawthorne to construct loading islands, otherwise I would agree that left-lane streetcar operation would be superior.
Jamie –
The width of the streetcar currently in use is 8ft. This compares to 8ft 8.5″ for MAX LRVs and 8′ 6″ for a typical transit bus.
The streetcar is narrower than a bus (so only 3 seats per row typical instead of 4 seats per row), but longer (66 feet vs. 40 feet) so it has a higher passenger capacity than a bus and slightly wider aisles.
It is the narrower body width and the predictability of fixed-rail guidance that make the streetcar my preferred choice for Hawthorne.
Depending on the streetcar vehicle type selected, streetcars may be coupled to provide a doubling of capacity over bus, without the expense of an additional driver/operator. With multiple doors for boarding, dwell times at stops is less than that of a bus, especially for wheelchair access. The ramp mechanism on a streetcar or LRV is far simpler than the kneel/extend/lift mechanism of a bus.
“Express to 39th” service would be a problem. However, with proper upgrades to signal preemption and proper spacing of stops, moving to streetcar-only might not be a significant degrading of that one particular express service.
As for enforcing right-turns, this could be done with special signals or just adequate signage and lots of line painting. It should be noted that under this plan, the streetcar stops would be located at the far side of intersections. With the streetcar stopped, automobiles behind the streetcar will have plenty of time to notice that their options are to move into the left lane or to turn right.
The Third Way:
This is probably too controversial to even bring up, but there is one more idea which is unlinked to whether or not a streetcar gets deployed on Hawthorne: Eliminate Street Parking (hang on! hear me out…)
If street parking is eliminated, sidewalks can be significantly widened (they are overcrowded in places already), dedicated bike lanes can be added, and the auto lane could be widened to 10′ which is not expressway-wide but would prevent conflicts with bus mirrors, and would prevent the problem of car doors opening into buses, cars, and bikes.
The lost parking could be replaced with a few strategically placed garages with ground-floor retail. If done properly with signage and street markings, this replacement parking could even help prevent the spillover onto residential streets that now occurs.
Also, in reference to Michael’s comment, this additional right-of-way could be used for a center-running streetcar with boarding islands.
– Bob R.
They must work to improve the bike and walkability or they are going to be the losers eventually. The charm of 5 years ago is fading
PDOT already has plans –and the project is moving forward this year– for major “streetscaping” of Hawthorne to make it more pedestrian friendly. That discussion’s been had years ago…but its continuing because even with those improvements, there are still issues.
What benefits does the streetcar provide that enhanced bus service, or trolley bus service wouldnt provide?
Well, that should be the question. Instead, what’s posed is the streetcar vs a “no build” option. There’s no discussion of enhanced bus service either North-South through the CEID, or better and increased bus service for Hosford-Abernethy. (Where, close-in as we are, its not unusual to have a full bus pass you by.) That’s the frustration for me. We’re talking a quarter-billion dollars of infrastructure improvement largely in my neighborhood that doesn’t do ANYTHING for MY neighborhood except, maybe, someday being the hub for the spoke of some OTHER improvement.
Or that, arguably, may or may not provide some street calming of MLK. If THAT’S really the goal, there’s far cheaper ways to accomplish that.
I like streetcars…but I don’t see this one being sold as a transportation solution to any of our existing transportation challenges. And it is a LOT of money.
Bob R:
Your 3rd way is too modest to be controversial! I would most prefer to see the length of the street changed to 2 lanes (1 in each direction) with a center turn lane and a bike lane – like it is already from 39th on out, more or less. This would allow widening of the sidewalks, more trees, a generally more joyful urban experience.
Let’s boldly head where we need to be headed and not be timid in the face of motorist tyranny! (Just kidding, a little bit.)
Ron,
The route of the proposed Milwaukie MAX line may bypass most of the Sellwood-Moreland neighborhood where you live, but the first two miles of the route goes through land that is highly developable. Those of us that live in the Brooklyn and Hosford-Abernethy neighborhoods are counting on this project to provide us with the transit capacity that we need and the infill development that we want.
On the otherhand, I’m in full agreement with you on the placement of the streetcar on SE Milwaukie Avenue. This would alleviate the overcrowding that is occuring on bus line #19 and foster redevelopment along this otherwise neglected corridor. There are many parking lots, vacant and underutilized properties that could be redeveloped.
With a few tweaks to the proposed route, I think that the streetcar and MAX would work well together. The streetcar could act as a local collector and provide quick transfers to MAX at SE Powell, SE Holgate, SE Bybee and Downtown Milwaukie.
Hmm. I’d like to support Bob R’s proposal to remove parking on Hawthorne, and replace it with a center-loading streetcar, bike lanes, one through traffic lane in each direction, wider sidewalks, and street trees. And left turn lanes at intersections without streetcar stops.
THAT is my idea of the ideal Hawthorne Blvd. that works for everybody, and that we’ve all been secretly hoping for all along.
There’s room for a parking garage behind Freddy’s, in front of Safeway, where the liquor store currently is up at 26th or so, at Daily Grind, and in soem other places. Also, new advances in automated parking mean that, in lots where there is enough horizontal room, automated parking systems can allow for ground-floor retail, an interior parking garage, and exterior office/residential units. Wow!
How do we make it happen?
Back to the bridge question.
Why can’t Streetcar use the Hawthorne Bridge including the elevated approaches for crossing the UPRR? That would reduce prices a bit.
Frank, my two cents is that Sue Pearce has done a great job of representing HAND, but of course it’s up the neighborhoods who they send as their representatives. As to outreach, I just came from a City Club luncheon where Adam Davis said all forms of public engagement are not working well, so I’m open to suggestions…
Hawthorne vs. Caruthers bridges
Hawthorne is absolutely viable, but Caruthers is optimal because of the destinations we want to serve. The two southern ‘anchor’ destinations are OMSI and PSU (or maybe RiverPlace). Hawthorne is north of both of those, so if you have out-of-direction travel to serve those destinations. If the Caruthers doesn’t happen, Streetcar could certainly use the Hawthorne.
i enjoy the content of this website very much, but reading can be a chore because I don’t understand half of the acronyms. for example, what is “ROW” as in “I do not think there is sufficient ROW on Hawthorne to construct loading islands”? i know it’s probably a lot to ask for people to type out what their acronyms stand for, but perhaps a there could be a translation key somewhere?
anyway, i love all the speculation, especially on Hawthorne. they’ll be starting some work here pretty soon.
Peter –
Sorry for using so many acronyms. I agree a glossary would be a good idea for newcomers to the site. I did a quick Google search and couldn’t find a decent abbreviation glossary, but maybe I was looking in the wrong place.
FYI, ROW stands for “Right of Way”, generally meaning the publicly-owned space between property owners which includes sidewalks, parking, travel lanes, etc. or can sometimes refer to smaller subsets of the entire right-of-way. For example, saying that a bus runs in a “dedicated ROW” means that a bus has its own special lane.
– Bob R.
Frank, my two cents is that Sue Pearce has done a great job of representing HAND, but of course it’s up the neighborhoods who they send as their representatives
I’m not criticizing Sue, Chris, and don’t mean it to come off that way. It’s just that one representative does not represent a groundswell of support for this project in our neighborhood…the reality is that most people –99.9% of them–know nothing about it.
We can blame “regular” folks –who aren’t government employees, or neighborhood activists– for not paying enough attention, or plugging into their Neighborhood Associations more. And that’s true to an extent…but the reality is there’s serious problems with public process –as I’m sure you’ve just heard– and this project in particular has NOT been sold to the neighborhood and so when we talk about “strong support” well, sure, maybe the people who worked very hard –like Sue– going to a zillion meetings…but outside our small circles, I’m afraid we’re not getting the word out. And when I get email after email telling me to go to a web site for “more information”…and there’s nothing there, we add to the general feeling of disconnect and growing cynicism about government. I mean, I’m the Land Use & Transportation Chair…and I only learned about this whole “options” schtick a couple of weeks ago!
And, folks, the Hawthorne Citizen Advisory Committee hashed through the one-lane, bike-lane, get rid of parking options years ago. I wasn’t happy with that committee’s decisions –especially regarding my neck of the woods at SE 23rd & Hawthorne, but that project is starting this summer and I recommend going to PDOT’s web site to check out where the Hawthorne Boulevard Plan is AT before the final concrete gets poured.
And furthermore… :-)
The #14, Hawthorne Boulevard’s well-used bus line is now being re-routed to turn right at 2nd…and not go further west, as most passengers do. AND it will return east via the Morrison Bridge, adding miles –and time– to our commute.
And where did I first here about THAT Chris? Here! Are there notices on the #14 buses about this “proposed change” we still have time to comment on? I haven’t seen any (though I’ve seen notices posted at bus stops).
18 years I’ve stood on over-crowded buses, with zero relief in sight…and THIS is how we promote mass-transit to the people using it. No, we worry about adding streetcar lines where there isn’t anybody as a “development tool.”
When did we vote on that?
Frank –
I am aware of the PDOT plans for Hawthorne. They represent a good short-term improvement, and one that would not be incompatible with a right-hand-side streetcar operation like I described above.
Regarding the bus relocation plan, I don’t think you can blame anyone for not having heard about it. There have been numerous workshops held in various neighborhoods, the most recent workshop held in April was very well attended. There has been media coverage in the Oregonian and the Tribune, and anyone who has ever signed up for a TriMet email bulletin service has been told about it, and the information has been prominently displayed on the TriMet web site for many months.
And yes, you can still comment on the latest relocation plan, until May 31st.
– Bob R.
Regarding the bus relocation plan, I don’t think you can blame anyone for not having heard about it…and anyone who has ever signed up for a TriMet email bulletin service has been told about it
Bob,
The change for the #14 is quite a dramatic one, and brand new from the ORIGINAL bus relocation plan. I did, indeed, get an email from Tri-Met, but AFTER I read about it here.
There’s no public hearing on routing the folks from Hawthorne over to the Morrison Bridge.
Frank
Frank, let’s be fair. TriMet used a number of vehicles to promote the revised plan, this site being one of them (it’s not like I dug it out, they sent it to me). The ‘release date’ for the new info was 9am on Wednesday. It was posted here shortly after it appeared on their site. Then the waves of e-mails started. The fact that you read it here is just a question of where you first intersected the info (of course I’m glad we’re your preferred channel for transportation issues).
Let’s see if the city opened up the transit market to private buses, ride sharing taxis, jitneys and another other idea including pedi-cabs, I’d bet much better service could be started and quickly for little or nothing in tax dollars. I can see it now, jitney’s running down Hawthorne and returning up it every three minutes.
I guess a guy can dream, perchance pleasant dreams, but now nightmares.
Can you imagine the wide corners they are going to have to make to turn a streetcar around and they just put all those corner extensions in.
M.W.
Let’s see if the city opened up the transit market to private buses, ride sharing taxis, jitneys and another other idea including pedi-cabs, I’d bet much better service could be started and quickly for little or nothing in tax dollars. I can see it now, jitney’s running down Hawthorne and returning up it every three minutes.
I guess a guy can dream, perchance pleasant dreams, but now nightmares.
Can you imagine the wide corners they are going to have to make to turn a streetcar around and they just put all those corner extensions in.
M.W.
Michael –
Streetcars do not need to “turn around”, they have operator cabs at both ends and simply reverse directions on a crossover track.
Hawthorne historically had a streetcar all the way out to 54th, then south on 54th to Lincoln, east to 60th, south to Division, jogged over to 61st, south to Woodward and east to 74th.
You can still tell how 54th was once a streetcar thoroughfare, with its tall telephone polls and wide right-of-way.
For a list of all of Portland’s historic streetcar routes, see:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/dthompso1/StreetcarLines.html
For a modern example, look no further than the Pearl District and at NW 23rd/Lovejoy, where the current Portland Streetcar makes several tight turns at intersections that feature curb extensions.
– Bob R.
I attended the eastside streetcar hearing and the turn-out was pathetic. They scheduled a two-hour hearing and only 6 citizens showed up: Jim Howell, Ray Polani, Doug Klotz, Ron Swaren, some guy representing the Rose Garden, and that anti-transit guy from North Portland who ran against Rex for Metro Council. I didnt see any new faces. I’m not sure if this means that the public is just not enthusiastic about this project or that the traditional public hearing model just doesn’t work anymore. I at least expected to see on or two of the property owners from the central eastside.
“Why not extend this line south to Milwaukie?”
Ron, this was looked at during the south corridor process. It is my understanding that there is just not enough capacity on the streetcars to accomodate all of the riders in the McLoughlin Corridor. This corridor generates 15% of TriMet’s entire system ridership. If the buses from Oregon City (#33, 99) stop in Milwaukie to transfer to rail, they can’t all fit on a single streetcar. Only double LRT cars have the capacity and frequency to absorb all of those bus riders and still have enough room so the people boarding in Sellwood, Westmoreland and Brooklyn can get on too. The capacity of the current streetcars will limit their utility in high ridership corridors where people are transferring from buses to rail.
Brian,
I appreciate the effort that Milwaukie put into plannning a commuter rail line to Milwaukie. Has anyone projected the costs to: Clackamas TC or to Oregon City? I am aware of the existing freight line going east. If these extensions are put off several years will the cost be a billion plus?
My thought has been that two streetcar routes could proceed north from Milwaukie; one on the eastside, and another crossing Sellwood bridge to points both north and south. There I just tripled the destinations! And it would probably cost one third of the MAX, since WestShore is a different project. Riders could both get to downtown Portland, Eastside, Lloyd District, Northwest Portland, Lake Oswego and (importantly)the burgeoning OHSU/SOWA complex. Even possibly with no transfers. Cars could alternate between the East route and the West Route–with intersection at Tacoma St.
And if it still has too little capacity–reduce the headway during rush hour. Park the surplus vehicles the rest of the day. My informal survey of MAX trains–most of the time there’s lots of room.
Bob R. says: “Streetcars do not need to “turn around”, they have operator cabs at both ends and simply reverse directions on a crossover track”.
Your right Bob and I am wrong. Having been on them in Boston and New Orleans I know that to be true. But we will see how much the streets have to widened to accompany them.
M.W.
Bob R. says: “Streetcars do not need to “turn around”, they have operator cabs at both ends and simply reverse directions on a crossover track”.
Your right Bob and I am wrong. Having been on them in Boston and New Orleans I know that to be true. But we will see how much the streets have to widened to accompany them.
M.W.
I should have said “You’re right” in the above.
Old age being my only excuse.
M.
I should have said “You’re right” in the above.
Old age being my only excuse.
M.
Michael –
Thanks for your reply.
– Bob R.
Some points:
Michael, Bob R., Frank Dufay, I like all of your points.
If the streetcar “entity” was responsible for it’s own existence Hawthorne would be high on the list as a simple $.50 cents would fulfill the basic operating costs with current #14 ridership levels, with a $2-$3 dollar fare depending on how far you go it could make a PROFIT and provide far superior service to the #14 and more “traffic calming” and such advantages also.
The problem is this east side expansion isn’t about serving market demand.
If the streetcar “entity” was responsible to patrons and public citizen input it would focus on again, Hawthorne, and also probably Belmont, Hollywood, and a dozen other places where streetcars where 50-60+ years ago. The densities created by those lines area still present, and currently served with busses with some degree of status. A streetcar line would serve to create an even more positive atmosphere and probably provide even better service along these routes.
The problem with this is there seems to only be interest in creating NEW TODs and what not. The current populace continues to sputter along with wretched old bus service (such as the standing #14 – which I also rode twice today).
I like the idea of an east side streetcar, I don’t even really care if it connects to the west side. My biggest concern is that this though, is used extensively to encourage expansion of the system down the above stated streets. In all seriousness myself and many of my friends would go to Hawthorne, Belmont, and the associated businesses along these routes much more often (2x-3x as much) if there where a streetcar instead of the ole’ busses. So hopefully the Streetcar “entity” will get it built, not vacuum up and run out of funds, and immediately start expansion to cover all of the older pre-existing routes! Unlike the current semi-neat, somewhat important, kind of useful streetcar route, an eastside expansion covering these streets would create so much more economic cash flow and development, along with other great life style changes (decreased SOV usage) that they would definately be this FANTASTIC system.
As for Bob R. & Michael in regards to the streetwidth concern, with proper engineering and ROW in Hawthorne the streetcar could be designed like the streetcar currently serving Tacoma. That way only one 8ft right of way path would be needed and the streetcar would be able to cross at double tracked center island loading areas. With lights at each of the corners this would serve to create a serious traffic calming situation, and there could be one every quarter mile (or at each current traffic lighted stop that exist now) creating a MUCH more timely method of getting up and down Hawthorne than the current busses, cars, bikes, (…or running really fast :) ) would be able to provide. Also in regards to removing streetside parking, just remove one side and not the other. That would also dampen the resistance of such an idea.
Bob R. – > Did you build the streetcar website? If so could you contact me in regards to that? I’d like to ask you some things in reference to some of the information… adron at adronbhall dot com…
thanx.
Adron –
I did not built the portlandstreetcar.org web site and I have no involvement with it.
I _am_ the owner of the (currently unused) portlandstreetcar.com
As a completely off-topic aside, since I was asked about web site construction here, hopefully Chris won’t mind if I promote a web site which I did construct:
The Rose City Park Neighborhood Association
http://www.rcpna.org/
– Bob R.
Kay Dannen at Portland Streetcar, Inc. is responsible for the web site. You can reach her at information@portlandstreetcar.org.
I seem to be missing something regarding the track as proposed on Hawthorne. Is there suppossed to be one set of tracks on Hawthorne with the streetcar going in only one direction?
Then have it go in the opposite direction on another street, say Belmont.
Or is it proposal for two sets of tracks on Hawthorne so that two, or more streetcars can run side by side in the opposite directions at the same time?
M.W.
I seem to be missing something regarding the track as proposed on Hawthorne. Is there suppossed to be one set of tracks on Hawthorne with the streetcar going in only one direction?
Then have it go in the opposite direction on another street, say Belmont.
Or is it proposal for two sets of tracks on Hawthorne so that two, or more streetcars can run side by side in the opposite directions at the same time?
M.W.
Michael, that’s a pretty fundamental question. In the core, it’s easy to find pairs of streets to operate on (or even a two block separation as in Lovejoy/Northrup). Two blocks probably maximizes development potential.
In a corridor like Hawthorne or Belmont, that logic doesn’t apply since the adjacent streets are probably not suitable for Streetcar.
It’s an issue the city wide planning process is going to have to grapple with.
Michael –
At least as far as what I was proposing goes, there would be two tracks on Hawthorne, one eastbound and one westbound.
Adron proposed a streetcar which runs on a single track that splits to two at every station. Streetcars would proceed in either direction on the single track when the track is clear using signals to prevent collision. This is what parts of the Tacoma system do today. It is very difficult, however, once you reach a certain frequency of trains, to maintain a reliable schedule with this method.
Baltimore recently learned this the hard way and spent more $$$ than it would have cost to double-track in the first place to rip things up and put them back in with two tracks.
The current #14 bus has over 8,800 daily boardings. This is comparable to the ridership on the current Portland Streetcar route. We can assume that a Hawthorne streetcar would start out with high ridership immediately, and probably grow higher than that as “choice riders” who would not hop on a bus but would hop on a streetcar use the system, and as infill development gradually occurs in that corridor.
The #14 bus, at “peak of the peak” service, runs at every 5 or 6 minutes in the peak direction.
At that level of ridership and at those headways (time between transit vehicles), you need to start out with double-track service.
– Bob R.
Hey Bob. R…
That is an extremely good point. I’d forget the 8000 number. On Hawthorne, all the way to the end of the route, you’d probably get closer to 16,000 plus per day of ridership. This is another reason also to drop my idea and go with dual tracks. Still though frequency needs to be high on Hawthorne. During peak times a 5-7 minute headway would have a packed streetcar.
Whatever is proposed and put into place seriously needs to keep in mind that the number a streetcar is going to carry is going to easily be almost 2x what is done with an ole’ bus.
…anyway, if anyone is interested…
I did a sketch of my previously stated idea over at my site… http://www.adronbhall.com/weblog
Jason McHuff writes: “I worry that if jitneys and other things joined the transportation market that they would cannibalize TriMet’s ridership and cause them to need more subsidies. I’m not saying that there necessarly bad–I did pay for a $25 cab ride last night.”
As I understand jitneys were legal for a few years after they started showing up on Portland’s street, which was about 1915, as well as those of most other cities in the U.S. Because they were more flexible than the streetcars people began to use them more.
And the streetcar companies began to lose business
which resulted in those companies going to city hall to get the jitneys outlawed. I understand that the legal battle dragged on for over two years here in Portland. By about 1925 most cities across America had outlawed jitneys.
The flexibility of the jitneys was one of their attractions and people began to complain about the noise of the streetcar wheels on the tracks as well as the overhead wiring which was considered ugly (that’s before we called such stuff visual pollution) and streetcars were being seen as out of fashion, poorly maintained and anyone, gawd forbid, could ride one (so much for diversity).
Jason McHuff writes: “I worry that if jitneys and other things joined the transportation market that they would cannibalize TriMet’s ridership and cause them to need more subsidies. I’m not saying that there necessarly bad–I did pay for a $25 cab ride last night.”
As I understand jitneys were legal for a few years after they started showing up on Portland’s street, which was about 1915, as well as those of most other cities in the U.S. Because they were more flexible than the streetcars people began to use them more.
And the streetcar companies began to lose business
which resulted in those companies going to city hall to get the jitneys outlawed. I understand that the legal battle dragged on for over two years here in Portland. By about 1925 most cities across America had outlawed jitneys.
The flexibility of the jitneys was one of their attractions and people began to complain about the noise of the streetcar wheels on the tracks as well as the overhead wiring which was considered ugly (that’s before we called such stuff visual pollution) and streetcars were being seen as out of fashion, poorly maintained and anyone, gawd forbid, could ride one (so much for diversity).
Adron –
That’s a good sketch over on your blog. Is that to scale? (Will it fit in the Hawthorne ROW?) Maybe applying similar ideas (jogging lanes around short sections with no parking) would allow for a dual-track center-island (with offset islands, like Interstate MAX) configuration.
Michael –
I’d be for opening things up to jitney experiments provided that the jitneys would serve the entire metro area and could not discriminate against passengers and were subject to the same safety and liability standards as transit.
With modern GPS-based guidance, one could imagine a vehicle that perhaps seated up to a dozen people and this vehicle had a rollsign that served a particular section of town or zip code. Passengers would board and using perhaps a farecard or a terminal, enter their address. A computer would could optimize the dropoff route to be the most efficient.
But the jitney operators really do have to serve the entire area, just as transit is required. If all the jitneys do is pick off the most profitable riders along already-established transit routes, what is the point?
– Bob R.
Bob traditionally jitneys provide service to a particular neighborhood, or a street, say for example 82nd St, or the Sellwood area.
What I would suggest we need is to try a number of different service levels, some city wide others locally oriented.
M.W.
Bob traditionally jitneys provide service to a particular neighborhood, or a street, say for example 82nd St, or the Sellwood area.
What I would suggest we need is to try a number of different service levels, some city wide others locally oriented.
M.W.
I don’t really see why we would have to force people into operating a city-wide jitney service. That kind of service wouldn’t be profitable in most areas except the high-intensity areas like hawthorne. What’s wrong with them picking up profitable riders in already-established areas? I say leave the city with its regulations out (especially funding, cost, tax incentives or whatever else) and let it be a business. The government really should have no say in it at all, except whether to allow it or not. If one guy wants to run a buggy up hawthorne let him (or belmont or mississippi or wherever else).
Isaac –
If jitneys (or other parallel services to public transit) are not required to serve the same areas as public transit, they will only pick off profitable customers from corridors already well served by transit.
The result would likely be no net improvement in transit service in the affected corridors, and much higher operating costs for transit as the easiest to serve customers are taken away.
This may not necessarily be a bad thing, but what it does mean is that transit will become more expensive to operate (no only serving unprofitable areas) and even more public subsidy will therefore be required.
It is sort of like “school vouchers” that let private schools accept only the students they wish to accept from the public school system, leaving the public schools to handle more expensive kids with special needs.
(Actually, in a similar way, I support school vouchers _if_ and only if the private schools have to A) accept anyone who could go to a public school and B) do so for the exact money a public school receives, no additional tuition charges. Anything less is simply a giveaway to private schools. I believe the same principles apply to opening up the transit market.)
– Bob R.
Bob R. says”This may not necessarily be a bad thing, but what it does mean is that transit will become more expensive to operate (no only serving unprofitable areas) and even more public subsidy will therefore be required”
How much is light rail subsidized? Here is the St. Louis Reserve Bank on the subject:Study:http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2004/c/pages/light_rail.html
It will probably be dissed by LRT advocates.
For the umpteenth time I will say that I am not against commuter rail, per se. However, it has to be fully utilized and we need to look for ways to reign in the costs. That is why I would tend to look at Streetcar as the more cost-effective method, in Portland, in most applications. Chicago or LA might be different. Although some were recently saying that its costs are rising,too. So what’s new? you say. Well, some technologies do come down in cost, like flat screens or Lasik surgery. It can happen.
Ron –
Sorry to avoid your direct point about streetcar costs, I am trying to gather data to do some kind of useful comparison between LRT and streetcar in Portland.
I do wish to point out that using the term “Commuter Rail” when describing MAX is soon going to add confusion, because Washington County commuter rail in the true sense (scheduled trains during commute hours rather than frequent service) is on the horizon.
Also, bringing Chicago into the LRT discussion isn’t quite right either, as they operate a grade-separated heavy rail system.
– Bob R.
Just wanted to toss this idea out there again:
If Tri-Met builds a light rail line out the Powell/Foster corridor, then a Hawthorne-only, or Hawthorne to 50th to 52nd & Foster streetcar line would probably work like a charm, and also be able to handle all of the capacity in a basically Hawthorne-only corridor.
And I think that Hawthorne still has some room to densify… that Safeway could probably be redeveloped to add a couple hundred units, ala the Safeway downtown. Ditto for Freddys and most of the other businesses that currently still have surface parking. So, there might be a little bit of room for additional infill TOD around a Hawthorne streetcar alignment.
Garlynn –
Yes, I agree about infill and TOD along Hawthorne. Also, I believe people are more willing to walk a few blocks from their residence to catch a streetcar than they are to catch a bus. It is simply a more attractive mode, and thus, transit mode share would increase in the corridor.
– Bob R.
In many ways the most doable Streetcar extension on the eastside may be in the Williams/Vancouver corridor to the north as far as Killingsworth (PCC Cascade Campus, Jefferson HS, new MacMinnemans HQ).
Its a one-way couplet with mostly one lane for autos and one for bikes; we would have to figure out how to make bikes, cars and Streetcars work within each two lane ROW. But, there is a lot of open land for redevelopment, and already new projects are coming along. It could well be the next Big Thing.
let’s see… TOD. transit-oriented development? i think i’m catching on.
if a hawthorne street car line were built i would use it all the time. currently i don’t use the bus much because i don’t need to go anywhere, and it is really uncomfortable (bad back). but i want to be more mobile.
as far as TOD goes, drive from 39th/hawthorne, down to 50th, then 50th down to foster. on hawthorne there are a bunch of spaces that are begging for higher density development. on 50th go past division and witness the crumbling buildings. on both roads i imagine once a streetcar is put in, many properties will become more valuable as tear downs–think of the developers dream that could be put in where the eagles lodge currently resides, for example. fewer drunk drivers, too, as the space room/BOG/sewickly’s trio is quite the drinkers paradise: stiff, cheap drinks.