The cover article in today’s Trib (“Streetcar planning calls for patience”) seems to suggest that Streetcar is going too fast!
For the record, I don’t think we need to slow down, all I’m concerned about is that our Streetcar lines are well-planned and that every potential community has the opportunity to make their case for their position in line based on the merits, not just on political expediency or the the clout of particular interests (on the other hand, the ability of those interests to contribute $$$ to construction and operation and in turn leverage land use or economic development gains for the community is a real factor that goes into the merits discussion).
Nor do I think Streetcar is “magic pixie dust.” Streetcar works in conjunction with other land use and transportation strategies, which is why it’s important that future lines be well planned.
But I do think Streetcar is transformative. Even as some voices at Metro are advising patience, I think Streetcar could actually be one of the key tools to make the Centers that Metro is pushing so hard for happen.
And to the continued debate about Streetcar draining operating funds from buses or LRT, let me say it one more time: the problem is that we have an inadequate level of funding for transit operations in our region. Let’s grow the pie, not argue about the size of the slices!
46 responses to “Patience Not Always a Virtue”
Someday I will take some photos of ridership on the Interstate MAX, since I frequently spot it on my way to or from the carpenters union hall. Honestly, except at commuting hours, I have never seen anymore people on it than could fit on a Tri Met bus. For this project $350 million dollars had to be found. We’re almost talking real money now!
If it crosses the Columbia River to Vancouver I have no doubt ridership will increase. But realsitically how much? Yet some people advocate, besides rebuilding the I-5 bridge(s), to construct a new crossing (Figure three bridges: Slough, Harbor and Main Channel) to get this to Vancouver. Now what will that cost? Bridges ain’t cheap. And even if it is multi-use it is still fair to apportion a share of the cost to the MAX project. So how much, total, to Vancouver? $500 million? $600 million?
( I have been supporting an alternative crossing, downstream, that could carry MAX and link to AMTRAK, or have an alternative route for streeetcar)
Some regions use plush commuter buses for long range commutes: Think high back seats, coffee machine, laptop connections. I doubt if one of these would cost $.5 million.
The drawback of the Streetcar, I think, is the low passenger capacity. Yet I think this can be solved. I’ve seen some suggestions, already. I think also that the entire construction process should be analyzed. Perhaps there would be a way to prefabricate railbed components to be strong, but relatively lightweight and quicker to install, with smaller equipment. Mass production allows methods in shops that are not done out on jobsites. (Today many commercial buildings with masonry exteriors use prefabricated components that are lifted into place with a crane.) Incorporating streetcar railbed into ongoing projects would also save cost. I don’t necessaily know the exact answers; but it behooves us to make this palatable to the taxpayers.
Making the SC mmore economical to produce and build would also make it much more desirable to smaller communities, and increase the market. It’s a fine line: Attracting users V. imposing tax burdens on the public.
Some regions use plush commuter buses for long range commutes: Think high back seats, coffee machine, laptop connections. I doubt if one of these would cost $.5 million.
They do. The new “EmX” BRT/commuter buses in Eugene cost $960,000 each, and do not include laptop connections or coffee machines.
They are articulated buses with hybrid propulsion, dual-side boarding, and low-floor entry.
– Bob R.
Chris,
I’m very enthusiastic about SC expansion plans….
But!
I have a big concern about SC expansion and I hope you’ll consider it, maybe even doing some research yourself and possibly writing a PTrans article.
I’m very familiar with Streetcars and I use them daily. The city I now live in has about 20 Streetcar lines of varing designs and car types.
Most of the day, Streetcars are a fast and efficient way to get around, especially with sub 10 minute headways.
But the major flaw with Streetcars is that they do not function well in heavy traffic. If we continue SC expansion on thoroughfares like Burnside and Grand/Mlk we could end up with an expensive circulator system that very few people will want to use at rush hour, and public support will wane.
I think it is *extremely* important to consider creating SC-only (or transit only, including taxi access) lanes when the SC travels along major roads.
The SC is capable of coexisting with autos in mixed traffic… And we should implement it that way when it makes sense. But when possible, it will be better for all street transit in the long run if the SC is able to travel in its own lanes.
Please, trust me on this. Anybody with personal experience with a *completed* streetcar system will tell you the same thing.
A completed PDX streetcar system should transport shoppers, commuters, tourists, schoolchildren…. everyone. Its imperative we don’t limit its use by running the SC in mixed traffic on busy thoroughfares.
We have the chance to build a fantastic transit system the right way… and SC will be an important component of that system. with this oppurtunity comes a responsibility to learn from other cities and decades’ mistakes and failures.
Please let me know what you think Chris
Charlie Hales pointed out to me the other day, that while planning is great, you have to seize the opportunities to get stuff built.
According to the lightrail plans of the 90’s, Airport MAX was due after South/North in about 2009. But an opportunity came along…
The other driver is the confluence of support for a project from both the private and public side. Interstate MAX was reborn by the private side out of the ashes of the South/North election of 1998.
Public agencies only picked up the ball after the private sector put it in play.
Its good to look ahead and get a sense of what makes sense, but when an opportunity like Burnside/Couch comes along, we better grab it regardless of where in line a plan puts it.
Reducing auto lanes in the peak hours is a tough sell. Ask the trucking folks about Interstate MAX. The charm of Streetcar is that it is not a high capacity, high speed service with its own lane, and this makes it a lot more acceptable to many.
Operated on couplets like 10th & 11th with three lanes, it does pretty well. Grand and MLK with four lanes should be fine as will Burnside/Couch.
What you hope is that drivers chose other routes to avoid the Streetcar, just as with Bikeways. But already there are pinch points on the existing route that need attention…maybe just a pinch of signal pre-emption to keep things moving.
I think two-way service on Hawthorne is a pipe-dream, but B-way/Weidler, Williams/Vancouver, Belmont/Morrison could work.
Here’s a thought. Trucking, high capacity transit, Streetcar, and busses/cabs use middle lanes. All cars use the other lanes.
That should mean all high priority moving vehicles… everything from ambulances down to the Streetcar can get by without much gruff, can keep the lanes busy and fully utilized, at the same time providing traffic calming and maximum bang for the buck for everyone.
Hell, make the center lane if possible, and still not fully utilized, a charge lane. “Want to skip ahead?” pay this $1.50 charge and you get to go in the middle.
Seriously there are a million ways this could be setup to still have ALL travel lanes AND efficiency to actually get a Streetcar AND get it moving at a decent speed.
10mph is minimum average I’d want to see on Burnside & Sandy and on Hawthorne maybe average down around 8mph isn’t too bad of an idea.
Definately NOT as slow as the current configuration.
I do think with a dedicated ROW there should however be pulls offs that are out of the way for busses, Streetcar, and other large vehicles that could possible need to stop for loading passengers. The current configuration where the Streetcar or Busses just sit there in traffic burning their fuel and everyone else’s is generally A: very innefficient and B: extremely annoying for the other hundred or so people that are trying to get stuff done while waiting.
It would benifit all parties to have pull offs.
…anyway, another dozen thoughts will be posted via my own blog soon.
I think two-way service on Hawthorne is a pipe-dream
Care to elaborate WHY Lenny?
How about east on Belmont, turn at 39th, then go back west on Hawthorne?
Slow moving streetcars that stop in travel lanes, block other traffic and take away motor vehicle capacity do NOT belong, and have no place being added to high volume motor vehicle streets like Burnside, Sandy (that with the latest modifications is already becoming a totally messed up thoroughfare), Hawthorne (soon to be messed up), Broadway, MLK and/or Grand Avenue etc. As both Metro Chairman David Bragdon and Schnitzer Steel’s Ann Gardner alluded to in the article, streetcars can gum up the workings on such thoroughfares. For the most part, these streets do not need calming or slowing, What is needed is increased motor vehicle capacity city wide so the traffic can be dispersed over several routes and thereby take the pressure off channeled thoroughfares. If streetcars are to be included in Portland’s modal mix, they belong on parallel and less intensive auto related streets that can be redeveloped specifically to accommodate transit and pedestrian activity (like 6th Avenue on the eastside as an alternative to MLK and Grand) while at the same time not negatively impact motor vehicle travel and freight movements.
As for the streetcar’s price tag, instead of preying on taxpayers and motor vehicle parking subsidies, if wealthy developers and booksellers want streetcars, they should be willing to dig deep in their own pockets to pay for them, and for the operating subsidies too if the streetcars can not be made financially self-sustainable. Calling the streetcar a development tool is scamming the public. The initial price tag of a streetcar line plus operating costs that compared with buses are 60 percent more to operate per vehicle hour takes away money used by the City and TriMet that otherwise could be fixing potholes or providing better bus and light-rail service. It is not the streetcars that leverage development, it is the property tax abatements handed out by the City Council along the streetcar route that act as an incentive. That allows developers to escape paying taxes that support schools or other government services. The public is scammed again several times over to subsidize new development by making up the difference in tax dollars for the developers and property owners that no longer pay their fare share. As a replacement to handing out property tax exemptions like free candy, the City Council should be requiring developers to fund public amenities (the streetcar included) like is done in Vancouver, BC, not only for the public good, but also for the privilege of building in Portland.
Terry –
In mixed traffic, streetcars do not move slower than buses, and they also board/deboard faster than buses due to multiple boarding doors and fare payment methods that do not involve driver intervention.
Buses ALREADY run on Burnside and do NOT pull over because there already is NO ROOM for bus pullouts. The entire street currently operates like your much-maligned curb extensions, except that there is no benefit whatsoever to pedestrians.
Adding a streetcar to the mix will not reduce travel times for autos. On streets like Hawthorne where the lanes are too narrow for buses to avoid crossing the lines on a regular basis, streetcars could very well improve conditions for through traffic.
As for your call for more “dispersed” traffic along more arterials, which streets would you widen, whose front yards would you shrink, and what buildings would you raze to make motor vehicle capacity increase citywide?
– Bob R.
PS… regarding operating costs per vehicle hour, well, streetcars also carry more _passengers_ per vehicle hour than a bus.
– Bob R.
Bob R. Says: PS… regarding operating costs per vehicle hour, well, streetcars also carry more _passengers_ per vehicle hour than a bus.
JK: But how far? The way to measure results is passenger miles. A stationary box on the sidewalk, that people have to walk through, can carry thousands of people a day zero distance and thus be worthless as transportation. (Considering the streetcar’s speed, some might claim little difference between the two.)
Thanks
JK
A “Buses ALREADY run on Burnside and do NOT pull over because there already is NO ROOM for bus pullouts.”
B Exactly why busses should be rerouted to other streets and removed from Burnside.
A “On streets like Hawthorne where the lanes are too narrow for buses to avoid crossing the lines on a regular basis,”
B Narrower busses for these types of streets should be purchased, replacing the whales, and become the norm, Curb extensions should be replaced with bus zones so busses can pull over and those driving and actually paying a tax to use the street pass.
A “As for your call for more “dispersed” traffic along more arterials, which streets would you widen, whose front yards would you shrink, and what buildings would you raze to make motor vehicle capacity increase citywide?”
B For starters, relocating the bike lanes from SE 7th Avenue to 6th Avenue (where the trolley should go) and returning 7th Avenue to a four lane (two in each direction) arterial. Also add another lane in each direction on I-5 between Marquam and Fremont Bridges, add an I-5 connection to 99 as originally planned at the Marquam Bridge and restore Interstate Avenue back to a four lane street while still retaining light rail.
A “regarding operating costs per vehicle hour, well, streetcars also carry more _passengers_ per vehicle hour than a bus.”
B If you average in all the bus lines this is true. But the trolleys currently only operate on high volume transit routes so it is like comparing apples and oranges. If only compare the high volume bus routes against the trolley, the outcome is entirely different.
Given a reality check, the streetcar should be privatized with investors like the developers and booksellers, and then pay franchise fees to the City for the use of right-of-ways like the utilities do. Instead of subsidizing the trolley, the City makes a profit like they do from other basic services like electricity, communications and natural gas. The franchise fees could then be recovered through trolley fares. Then if the streetcar can not be made financially self-sustainable, it does not become yet another public subsidy requiring additional taxes.
On streets like Hawthorne where the lanes are too narrow for buses to avoid crossing the lines on a regular basis, streetcars could very well improve conditions for through traffic.
You’ve made this point a couple of time, Bob, and I want to emphasize it’s relevance. The buses on Hawthorne are, in effect, taking TWO lanes of traffic for much of the time. It is often unsafe to pass them as a driver, as they pull out way wide from the curb. This also has the effect of drivers –like me– using the left lane, you don’t want to get stuck behind a stopped bus, which increases the steady flow of traffic, leaving less breaks for pedestrians to cross. (Oh, I know, I know, all the cars stop for us at our invisible crosswalks…right.)
It is a mess, we pretend it isn’t, and it’s getting worse. Add to the mix the cyclists who insist on riding their bikes on Hawthorne –a suicidal enterprise in my opinion– traffic is gummed up NOW. A streetcar line would ameliorate this situation, not make it worse.
I want to reiterate something I mentioned in my first post:
Streetcars DO NOT work on heavy-traffic streets in rush hour.
*Everyone* here is posting theory. I am posting personal experience!!
I almost agreed with Terry that Streetcars should run on smaller parallel streets. Then he digressed into his usual self-serving rant. Terry, the streets are for everyone, not just single occupancy drivers! Furthermore, your demands are impossible to meet – pure fantasy. Get over it.
Adron, I like your idea for a multi-modal efficiency lane, especially on MLK/Grand.
Bob, I agree the buses and SCs on burnside will have similar effects on traffic. However, I believe that when we add the SC to Burnside we should be adding better, faster, more carefully planned transit.
We should implement SC all over PDX, but let’s make sure we do it the right way. Otherwise we will lose public support for the concept and a chance to create a world class surface transportation system.
Streetcars DO NOT work on heavy-traffic streets in rush hour.
It’s absolutely true that congested traffic is a disaster for Streetcar operations on the same street. We’re witnessing that currently in the Pearl on Lovejoy and at 11th through the Brewery Blocks.
While that should be a factor in route planning, it’s also true that it provides tremendous incentive to help make those streets work for all modes. The Burnside couplet will clear up the Brewery Blocks problem, and we’re looking at solutions for Lovejoy.
Making all modes work on MLK/Grand is going to be one of the big challenges for the next phase of the design of the Streetcar Loop. But I don’t think it’s impossible.
wow, lots of negatives for the Hawthorne line proposal, not suprising.. suprised no one has proposed a right turn on 50th then proceed farther out ‘Division as the old Hawthorne trolley bus ran…
re: nathan Says:
Thanks for the mention. If anyone remembers, I’m not sure if I saw in mentioned here on this blog or somewhere else, but somewhere (probably in Europe or Canada) they had express freight running in and out of the city on Streetcar ROW with what could be dubbed “Streettrucks”. They literally where a Streetcar cab with instead of passenger space about 4-7 cargo cars behind. It was really cool, and that would also (as it always does since freight always covers more costs than passengers) take care of some of those operating costs if done in conjunction.
Then of course, the line actually has to connect two points of shipping.
I made another “trackback comment” but it again didn’t catch my ping. I’m gonna look into that one day… but till then, my two cents on indadequate operational funding.
JK wrote: JK: But how far? The way to measure results is passenger miles. A stationary box on the sidewalk, that people have to walk through, can carry thousands of people a day zero distance and thus be worthless as transportation. (Considering the streetcar’s speed, some might claim little difference between the two.)
The discussion was in the context of bus vs. streetcar on similar routes, therefore the passenger mile figures would be similar between bus and streetcar, and moot for this comparison.
– Bob R.
Terry wrote: For starters, relocating the bike lanes from SE 7th Avenue to 6th Avenue (where the trolley should go) and returning 7th Avenue to a four lane (two in each direction) arterial.
Based on our past discussions, we are actually both in agreement that 6th would make a good transit street. However, if you intend to kick bikes off of 7th, regardless of transit, you’ll have to add signal lights at every major E-W street 6th crosses, and put stop signs on every minor E-W street, otherwise bikes will be unable to navigate across the busy streets. This would be quite costly, especially when you consider that the single auto lanes on 7th are underutilized most of the time today.
However, as I have stated in the past, I would like to see 7th established as an important N-S route to take some of the load off MLK/Grand, which is why I support putting a 7th Ave overpass across I-84. 7th could handle a lot of local trips this way. Once that bridge was established, traffic counts on 7th may shoot up to where two lanes per direction is necessary.
So, I would support your idea as part of a comprehensive project that made 6th into a bike boulevard with signalization, constructed a 7th ave overpass, and added motor vehicle lanes to 7th.
At that point (I admit this is likely a pure fantasy at this time, since the eastside streetcar planning process is so far along), the 7th Ave bridge would make a logical route for an eastside streetcar, which could then jog down to 6th as a bidirectional transit/bike/ped street, as long as the streetcar maintained signal preemption capability.
Also add another lane in each direction on I-5 between Marquam and Fremont Bridges,
I have demonstrated in the past that there simply isn’t room to do this without reconstructing nearly every overpass, ramp, and viaduct on the east side all the way north past the Fremont bridge. It would cost $billions to add one lane each way and would be highly disruptive.
But wait! That doesn’t mean I oppose a 3-through-lane per direction I-5. I’m just saying that removing the bottlenecks in this area isn’t so easy and that a relocated I-5 (whether it be in a “trench” or a “tunnel”) that gives so many people sticker shock may not actually be so bad considering the cost of revamping I-5 in place.
add an I-5 connection to 99 as originally planned at the Marquam Bridge
From/to what directions do you mean here? To the extent that it might relieve eastbound traffic off the Ross Island Bridge approach maze, I’m interested.
and restore Interstate Avenue back to a four lane street while still retaining light rail.
How would this be accomplished… by eliminating street parking? If your intention is for autos and LRVs to share a lane, I’d be opposed, but I am open to discussing converting selected segments of street parking into through lanes at some of the busier intersections, if they can physically be configured that way.
– Bob R.
Speaking of Interstate Ave… why not stick the trucks on the LRV tracks for a maintenance of way fee? Seriously. If it is a problem to trucking in the area – which I would assume it causes some slight headache being the flow that does come in and out of the I-5 to River area on opposing sides of this route, it might be helpful to double up these flows.
Matter of fact the only time I’ve seen Interstate honestly backed up was during rush hour, with some trucks having difficulty navigating on and off of Interstate. They caused the side streets to back up for about three cycles (I know this cuz I was as usual sitting enjoying a great North West Coffee type beverage and observing random things).
Meanwhile zero light rail trains came by. The track ROW was completely empty, but all of this traffic was piling up because of navigation issues. I’m not sure the easiest way to implement the idea, but seriously somehow better utilization of the ROW should be made until 2-3 minute head ways are actually needed on the light rail lines.
Somehow, someway. It qould quadruple value and the use of such taxpayer financed ROW.
wow, i really like that 7th st. overpass idea. too bad sulivan’s gultch requires such a broad span…
i think that this new corridor would spur people to use that current dead zone round lloyd center as well… sort of a ghost land over there, expecially at night.
“Making all modes work on MLK/Grand is going to be one of the big challenges for the next phase of the design of the Streetcar Loop. But I don’t think it’s impossible.”
Chris…… of course it isn’t impossible……no shit.
I want SC to work in PDX… But I *know* its not going to work if we don’t plan these routes out carefully.
I realize that the SC is a momentum-type of thing. And I’m cool with making the whole MF happen while things are hot.
But for the love of god … We should think a little before we put these lines in. I’m guessing there’s no consideration of a “special” lane on the MLK loop SC…. And that’s bullshit.
In this case a good plan is gonna be better than a fast plan.
If were gonna go up against the anti-transit and anti-urban lunatics we’ve got to have a real plan. The Portland SC system, when completed, should make every Jim K cry. I’m tired of half assed, politically driven projects. Were facing a real enemy in the anti-everything crowd. They want to kill all transit spending and they are gaining support from the undereducated and the rich suburbanites.
If we continue to expand the SC without taking these *fucking major* problems into consideration, the Terrys and the JKs of the world will win….and I don’t have any children, but if I ever did the last thing in the fucking world I’d want is to leave them a city where Terry and Jim decide what’s best.
Nathan, you see, the problem is that you railheads
are giving the anti-transit crowd ammunition by
pushing these half-assed projects, whereas if
Portland had a well-designed bus rapid transit
system which really reduced congestion and
attracted more riders instead of LRT, they could
not make their arguments as well.
Rail is good for places like Chicago and SF, but
definitely not Portland, IMHO.
Bob R. says:
“The new “EmX” BRT/commuter buses in Eugene cost $960,000 each, and do not include laptop connections or coffee machines.”
Bob, are these not fixed-guideway vehicles?
That sucks–a regular BRT would have been much
better.
Nick –
are these not fixed-guideway vehicles?
The EmX buses are NOT fixed-guideway, they are regular BRT buses (except with hybrid drive) and boarding doors added on the left.
That sucks–a regular BRT would have been much better.
I don’t understand your 2nd remark… EmX is about as close to “regular” BRT as you can get.
– Bob R.
Charlie Hales pointed out to me the other day, that while planning is great, you have to seize the opportunities to get stuff built.
JK: Don’t forget Charlie is a used car salesman that happens to be selling streetcars. He gets money from selling youall streetcars (by working for a company that sells/promotes streetcars). It would be interesting to ask him if he gets a commission.
Thanks
JK
Nick,
I agree that we can avoid giving anti-transit people ammunition if we plan our transportation system more carefully.
I’d like to see improvement in a number of areas, especially in bus/LRT/SC frequency. Improving headways might do as much to increase ridership as a new LRT line.
I also think its imperative that we fix the slow downtown LRT and the Steel bridge/Rose Quarter bottleneck.
Adding new Streetcar lines that may suffer from similar congestion and bottlenecks may impact the transit system negatively in the long run.
I also think its imperative that we fix the slow downtown LRT and the Steel bridge/Rose Quarter bottleneck.
On this I wholeheartedly agree.
A few relatively easy things that can be done (if I could wave a magic wand):
1. Eliminate the Convention Center station… DON’T PANIC… A number of people don’t realize this, but the Convention Center platform is located about the same walking distance from the Convention Center North entrance/ticket office as is the Rose Quarter station… Rename “Rose Quarter” to “Rose Quarter / Convention Center” and you still have the prestige of serving the convention center while eliminating a duplicative and underutilized stop. Provide a covered walkway (extend the canopy that already exists) and you’re all set.
2. Shift the 7th Ave. station 2 blocks west and call it “Grand / MLK” station. It will serve transfers to MLK/Grand every bit as well as the old Convention Center station, and will better serve hotels/condos in that area. Most office destinations will be no more than 1 block further away than they are today. This will also provide a nice, even station spacing between Rose Quarter and Lloyd Center.
3. Redo the trackwork leading westbound into the Rose Quarter station… right now, all Red/Blue trains must make a sharp jog to the right at the interlock leading into the station, this causes them to decelerate prematurely and pull into the station extremely slowly, and despite the slow speed the turning motion is jarring. This is because the way the interlock is designed, the regular trains are actually taking an irregular course. Straighten the trackway so that through trains are going in a straight line as they go through the interlock. Only saves a few seconds overall, but will do wonders for rider comfort and perception of speed.
4. Bring Skidmore Fountain station out into the light… this will require installation of new shelters and regrading of sidewalks, unfortunately, but by moving the station 3/4 of a block south: Ridership will improve (some people do not want to wait under a bridge with numerous transients, especially on weekdays), and station spacing will be better between Old Town/Chinatown station and 1st/Oak station.
5. Regarding the 3 very closely spaced stations at 3rd, 5th, and Pioneer Square, there may not be much that can be done, as these are already very high ridership stations. However, I think a _study_ should be done about consolidating the 5th St. and Pioneer Square stations by instead using the Courthouse block itself. This will provide much better transfers with the Mall, especially when the Green Line opens, with the downside that people not transferring may have one additional street to cross to reach their destination, but through travel time will be reduced. (Also, there may be a conflict with the recently installed courthouse parking ramp.)
6. Keep a close eye on the Salmon Street station… it is currently very underutilized and very closely spaced between Enron Park (sorry, couldn’t resist) and Goose Hollow. For most people in the area, closing Salmon Street would only have an impact of a block or two of walking. Several large condo projects are underway in the area… if boarding counts come up to being in line with the neighboring stations, it may be OK to keep it open, but otherwise it shouldn’t be there.
I realize that politics comes into play behind several of these station locations, but if the above recommendations are followed it could shave several minutes off of a through trip.
Now, if you _really_ want to see some pie-in-the-sky recommendations for untangling the rose quarter, complete with pictures, please see this post on Portland Transport from March.
– Bob R.
Bob R. said:
“The EmX buses are NOT fixed-guideway, they are regular BRT buses (except with hybrid drive) and boarding doors added on the left.”
I stand corrected–I had the impression they
were fixed guideway vehicles. Then that means
they can leave the POW and operate and regular
streets, also? (not necessitating inconvenient
transfers) That’s the desired FLEXIBILTY of
bus rapid transit over rail.
Ron Swaren said:
“Someday I will take some photos of ridership on the Interstate MAX, since I frequently spot it on my way to or from the carpenters union hall. Honestly, except at commuting hours, I have never seen anymore people on it than could fit on a Tri Met bus. For this project $350 million dollars had to be found. We’re almost talking real money now!”
>>>> My proposal for Intersate Avenue:
Convert the whole thing to a busway, thus offering direct (no transfers!) express services to St. Johns (west), Dekum (east), and Jantzen Beach/Vancouver (north). Then you would see
Interstate develop traction (sic).
Then that means they can leave the POW and operate and regular streets, also? (not necessitating inconvenient transfers)
Yes, they do in fact leave the dedicated ROW… from what I understand of the system, 60-70% of the ROW is dedicated, the rest is shared but with signal preemption.
Short of going to 100% ROW, this is a true BRT project in that it has special buses, special stations, and large sections of dedicated ROW. It will be quite interesting to see if riders take to it the way they do to rail, and if development patterns densify and grow as fast as they do around rail. I’m still a BRT skeptic, because usually “BRT” is a way to compromise transit systems to death while pretending they are as comfortable and as convenient as rail, but Eugene is a good test case for a real system that hasn’t been dumbed down.
My proposal for Intersate Avenue: Convert the whole thing to a busway
I won’t argue about the merits of your proposal, but do you think we can give the infrastructure we just installed a few decades to wear out before we go ripping it all up?
– Bob R.
Bob R. said: I’m still a BRT skeptic, because usually “BRT” is a way to compromise transit systems to death while pretending they are as comfortable and as convenient as rail, but Eugene is a good test case for a real system that hasn’t been dumbed down.
I think the San Diego BRT along I-15’s new HOT Lanes (HOV/Toll + BRT) are a great test for many metro areas, including Portland.
Along I-205 HOT lanes seem like a realistic idea, especially since the tolls would add revenue to add other HOT lanes throughout the region. Since they have congestion based pricing, it’s a way to make a rather consistent amount of money without giving up speed of the HOV/BRT network, since the HOV/BRT vehicles travel for free, and the rate from Tualatin to Vancouver could end up $20 or more.
San Diego is not a market where too many people want to use mass transit, so if they can get good ridership I’m sure Portland could at least do marginally better.
Dear Nathan:
I’m pro-Streetcar. But I can do math too. When you run a system, no matter how many people it carries, that is exhorbitantly expensive to setup, maintain, and operate, there is a finite amount of things one can do.
As for “undereducated and rich sububanites”, this is a patently untrue statement. Your implications are that they are stupid, education does not merit intelligence or know how. rich suburbinites is also untrue, the rich are generally in the city (who else can afford to?). The suburbanites are generally middle and lower middle class. Because the prices are what attracts those people there.
JK has extremely valid points. The more math and more calculations I do on Streetcar, MAX, etc, the more it comes out a 50/50 on cost and pollution (unless you can use wind & hydro), the only bonus is putting many people in one vehicle and utilizing much less space for the ROW. As for the most part, mass transit isn’t cheaper than the auto (if you go by JK’s basis of using Echos and Prius types of cars – I personally wouldn’t touch one). If you can just change the average persons in a car to 1.8 or better you almost double the efficiency. The Streetcar is nice, and I live where I do because of it, but I’m not going to say it does something it doesn’t. It generally attracts people who don’t want to deal with autos and want an urban lifestyle.
That’s it.
As for saying Terry & JK ruling the world would be a bad thing… I suppose the intentions, notions, and functional results of George Washington, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Adams, and all the others was just a really dumb silly idea huh? Be careful what you wish for, the opposite of JK & Terry is not pretty and usually ends in mass poor & desolate or outright war. History doesn’t lie, and it seems we’re all good at ignoring history…
But then of course Nathan, if you really wanted to prove the Streetcar efficient and sustainable (economically & environmentally) one would build/design/purchase Streetcars that carried about the same number of people at 1/3 the cost. If a Streetcar could be attained for about 600-950k then they would be much more valuable. In the sense of the right of way, rail would have to be more to the tune of only 1.5-1.8 times as expensive as roadways. Then, and only then, would there be an efficiency argument.
However there are the obvious things that are always up for argument that I agree with.
Rail adds permenancy that cannot be made with busses. LRT adds an attraction that isn’t had with BRT and such. Subways add scalability that can’t be had with any other form of transit. Commuter rail adds efficiency that can’t be made with other vehicles along with the same scalability while putting people in places where housing is truly “market rate” in affordability.
Portland is a great place to live, has a great transit system, but really needs to learn about not manipulating the markets to the detriment of the less than. I’m not one to worry about what happens to them directly as I’m not one of them, but I must say that the “less thans” shouldn’t be mistreated just because of false political premise.
As for the statement “politically driven projects” there is no other way to have anything but politically driven projects unless you put the industry back to the people, the markets, and the natural selection that occurs as such afterwards. Same goes for cars, gas, roadways, etc.
So as I said before, be careful what you wish for, and I’d lay of JK and Terry. They might sound nutso sometimes, but you aren’t sounding any better with your latent vulgarities and direct personal assaults. Stick to the topics and keep informed, you’ll do everyone better that way.
thx
As a response to Bob when responding to my previous comments:
If the streetcar was to be located on 6th Avenue, it would require all the signals and cross street stop signs. One of the changes that has been made on the Steel Bridge with the addition of I-Max was to place a barrier so non-transit vehicles can not use the westbound left lane that goes through the center of the bridge. Apparently TriMet did not like the mixed usage that had actually been working and in place since the Gresham line was built. The trolleys move slower than Max and stop and block other traffic every few blocks, Operationally, it benefits all street users including transit, to not be placed on and have the streetcars share lanes with other traffic on high volume thoroughfares Not only does routing the trolleys on parallel streets make common sense from a transportation corridor standpoint, but it allows the auto oriented street to grow in a manner that can fill the needs of motorists while the transit street can grow to meet the needs of transit, pedestrians and biking. Attempting to funnel everything onto one street simply requires too many compromises that negatively impact all users.
As for the Marquam Bridge ramps, they would be connecting 99 from the South to both directions on the freeway. The purpose would be to reduce traffic, targeting truck traffic, on MLK, Grand and possibly the Ross Island Bridge.
On Interstate, the street could be built right up to the sidewalks. However, restoring the motor vehicle lanes could possibly require reducing the width of the sidewalks in some locations and probably remove parking in some locations such as near stations. Prior to I-Max there was enough right-of-way on Interstate to have six lanes plus parking on both sides of the street with respectable sidewalks. That right-of-way width has not changed.
Adron,
I’m not gonna write a book… But I’d like to point out that I agree with you (and also, possibly, jk and terry) in that we really need a fiscally sound approach to transit in PDX.
Mass Transit is essential, but it should be well-planned physically and fiscally. I don’t want special business interests determining our transit priorities, regardless of their ideology. I think that’s an issue I try to bring up…
However, I strenously disagree with JK/Terry/et al, when it comes to perspective. I don’t want to get into Jesusland bashing… But their arguments, essentially, just add up to the same thing everytime: the car is king, suburbs provide the perfect lifestyle, peak oil-global parity-sustainability are charades, let’s just build more roads, everything was better 30 years ago.
Its hard to have an intelligent discussion with someone that believes oil is a nearly infinite resource…. And I recall JK posting that oil is a “renewable” resource.
Regarding the Streetcar, I think I’ve been advocating just what you described: let’s do as much for transportation as we can for the smallest investment. Sometimes better value means spending more $$.
Also, something that bothered my about your last post: your comparison of JK and Terry to the founders of our country. Please…
As I was riding in this morning on the #14, Hawthorne, crammed in and passing passengers left standing in the rain ’cause we were overfull…
With this proposed North-South Streetcar “loop” and the new zoning Council approved last week that will have us seeing more condos and office space in inner SE: How does the loop serve these folks in getting them downtown, or getting people from the Transit Mall to or from inner SE? Are they going to transfer to the already over-crowded transit corridor bus lines?
Assuming a lot of new residents will want to GET to downtown and the Transit Mall, how will they do that? It seems to me the “spokes” for Hawthorne, Stark, Belmont, Division are the transit corridors that need improving BEFORE we do an East-West improvement that could be better accompished with better bus service (an option the Transit Alternatives study did NOT even consider)?
What it seems we’re saying, otherwise, is that it is a higher priority to build transit service to spur development then it is to serve our existing customer base who are now being left behind in the rain?
Adron said:
“Rail adds permenancy that cannot be made with busses. LRT adds an attraction that isn’t had with BRT and such.”
Yes, LRT is more attractive to you railfans.
And BRT adds BIG attractions that definitely
cannot be had with LRT–flexibility and convenience. With BRT, service can be dynamically
tailored to demand.
When talking about Streetcar in the CEID or MAX on Interstate or changing bus routes, you had better think about the folks who live and do business on those streets and in those neighborhoods.
Running Streetcar down 7th Ave in CEID was killed due to zoning issues in an industrial sanctuary.
The big issue on Interstate for residents, is too many trucks, particulary between Greeley and Going.
Last, if you think buses are flexible, it is because you have never been involved in changing a route. Some folks do not want a bus line on their street; others do not want a bus line removed from their street, etc. Good luck.
But Streetcar is something that helps sell homes; it is transit that people appear to want on their street and that is one of its chief virtues.
…the new zoning Council approved last week…
What got rezoned?
What it seems we’re saying, otherwise, is that it is a higher priority to build transit service to spur development then it is to serve our existing customer base who are now being left behind in the rain?
I don’t blame you for being concerned about this but on the other hand might connections from Streetcar not be a driver to get better service on the spoke streets? If the buses are full before Streetcar riders can transfer on, that’s going to create pressure for better service.
Assuming a lot of new residents will want to GET to downtown and the Transit Mall, how will they do that? It seems to me the “spokes” for Hawthorne, Stark, Belmont, Division are the transit corridors that need improving BEFORE we do an East-West improvement that could be better accomplished with better bus service (an option the Transit Alternatives study did NOT even consider)?
I agree Frank. I would love to get on a streetcar at 23rd NW and dropped off at, or near SE 23rd and Hawthorne. The ability to do this, I believe, would make the streetcar readership surge therefore fueling the fire for more streetcar development. Help connect the SE to NW by rail!
When I see transit being planned to meet the NEED of transportation; rather than a planner’s or developer’s or contractor’s dream playing out in real-time, I might get behind some of these projects.
Westside MAX: Built to grow houses out of farmland. Still much of the farmland to this day is vacant – is that a good thing (more farms) or bad thing (underdevelopment)?
Airport MAX: Built because Bechtel wanted it. Their development area…still vacant. We (taxpayers) still footed 2/3rds of the bill.
Interstate MAX: The dream of the PDC. At least there was a busy bus line; however many trains are only one-car, and hardly full. How many people ride I-MAX compared to the 5-Interstate bus line?
Portland Streetcar: So that the snobs on 23rd (who already have their own bus line) can have their train; so that PSU can get more investment (aren’t they already on the transit mall) and build a new building using transit dollars (Urban Plaza); and then to SoWa (developers, period).
Commuter Rail: I really don’t know what this project is supposed to benefit, or accomplish. It’s Wilsonville station is literally in a no-man’s land; Tualatin’s station has ZERO transit accessibility and TriMet’s plan is…well…”we hope to” maybe re-route a bus there. And no direct access to Washington Square. The ONLY station that makes sense is Tigard.
Meanwhile, we have a vast metro area that needs transit NOW. Do we pick our noses and wait for the next round of rail funding, or just get some busses and put them on the road?
How many people ride I-MAX compared to the 5-Interstate bus line?
About twice as many, but that includes fareless square riders who may be using the Yellow line as a circulator. Still, the ridership is high compared to the #5.
If two-car trains are not required initially, that’s fine… it just means there is capacity for growth. A one-car MAX train is still larger than 2 buses.
– Bob R.
Erik-
Actually, there were real transportation needs for all of the corridors that you mention:
Westside MAX: Did you happen to live in Portland prior to 1998? The Sunset Corridor was a nightmare. Traffic jams in both directions, seven days a week. Tri-Met was running articulated buses, regular buses, anything they could do, just to try and keep up with demand in this corridor. Westside MAX has since *doubled* the ridership that the westside bus system used to have, and it keeps growing. They blew way past their initial ridership projections, and had to extend the Red Line from downtown out to Beaverton just to help with capacity problems.
Airport MAX: Tri-Met & Bechtel (not that I’m a Bechtel defender, but in this particular case they made the project happen) gave the Portland region the first rail-to-plane direct connection in the western half of the United States. It’s still one of the easiest-to-use connections *anywhere*. Just name one other airport where the train comes to within about 100 feet of baggage claim. Incredible.
Interstate MAX: This area will probably take quite some time to completely redevelop, for historical reasons that Tri-Met cannot just wave a magic wand at to fix. However, this line lays the groundwork for a line to Vancouver, WA. When that link is completed, you will see standing-room-only two-car-trains running the length of this corridor. At that time, development will have an easier time reaching its true potential.
Portland Streetcar: The 10th/11th corridor was envisioned by none other than Bill Naito (namesake of Naito Parkway) as the premier north/south rail corridor for downtown Portland. I spoke with him about this before his death, back when it was clear that light rail would not be routed on the corridor, but before it was clear that there would be a streetcar line. He made it very clear why this corridor would be good for rail transit, and he was right. Did you ever try to take transit north/south in this corridor prior to the streetcar? Sure, the streetcar isn’t *that* fast, but it’s faster than walking down to the bus mall, catching a bus, then walking back up to your destination. There definitely was a gap in service that the Streetcar has filled, brilliantly. Many of us applauded this service heartily when it was announced.
Commuter Rail: 217 is a nightmare. It has been for decades. Commuter Rail is supposed to give people an alternative to 217. I think (and hope) that the current service will just be the beginning, and that future service extensions to, say, McMinnville will give drivers a true alternative that they will use.
Finally: Development around transit is serving a need unto itself: Supporting Metro’s policy goals and the proper functioning of the Urban GROWTH Boundary. To the extent that we can construct development around transit, and expand transit into new areas within the UGB around which new development can be constructed, the UGB can thus be maintained. And to the extent that the UGB can be maintained, our remaining farm and forest lands will not need to be paved over.
Did you happen to live in Portland prior to 1998? The Sunset Corridor was a nightmare. Traffic jams in both directions, seven days a week. Tri-Met was running articulated buses, regular buses, anything they could do, just to try and keep up with demand in this corridor.
A: Why, yes, I did.
I very keenly remember the 700s (Crown-Ikarus articulated busses) and rode them often and frequently from Beaverton into downtown Portland.
I also lived in Beaverton AFTER MAX was constructed. Guess what – the Sunset Highway was STILL congested. Because ADT didn’t go down – in fact it went up. Only after ODOT’s recent improvement project from Sylvan to Cornell/Bethany did it make any difference.
Although MAX may have improved (to some degree) westside transit – TriMet also notes that two of the Hillsboro feeder routes are subject to discontinuation due to low ridership; and one route that I rode daily (50s – Cornell Oaks) has been discontinued for years.
Airport MAX: Tri-Met & Bechtel (not that I’m a Bechtel defender, but in this particular case they made the project happen) gave the Portland region the first rail-to-plane direct connection in the western half of the United States. It’s still one of the easiest-to-use connections *anywhere*. Just name one other airport where the train comes to within about 100 feet of baggage claim. Incredible.
Ok, is it train-to-plane, or train-to-baggage claim?
The “train to plane” claim is bogus. I understand what you mean, but let’s call it what it is. It is train to baggage claim. To get to the plane, one must still go up the escalator, get your ticket, go through security, etc. You don’t get off the train and onto the plane.
Whether that is “incredible” or not…what would be incredible is a local transit system that is fully functional for the vast, vast majority of residents. If you live in Forest Grove, Cornelius, large parts of Hillsboro and Beaverton, most of Tigard, almost all of Tualatin and Sherwood, western West Linn…you’re within the TriMet service boundary, and if you’re lucky, you can drive to a bus stop. MAX won’t answer that problem. Commuter Rail won’t answer that problem. Streetcar won’t answer that problem. But because TriMet has an infatuation with those modes of transport, that means less dollars for good, high quality, local bus service, to tie every resident together. The result is more train-to-parking lot service. Who cares if local streets are congested.
Commuter Rail: 217 is a nightmare. It has been for decades. Commuter Rail is supposed to give people an alternative to 217. I think (and hope) that the current service will just be the beginning, and that future service extensions to, say, McMinnville will give drivers a true alternative that they will use.
How will Beaverton-Wilsonville Commuter Rail connect to, say, McMinnville? The planned Oregon Electric route between Wilsonville and McMinnville was never graded; much less built. Over Rex Hill? How will that get paid for, when ODOT can’t find $150M to help build the Newberg-Dundee bypass (which is an estimated $500M?) This is a corridor with poor transit service; yet no one even considers using bus service to build support. So we could put busses on the road TODAY, or we can wait 15-20 years for a train.
The problem with Beaverton-Wilsonville Commuter Rail, in and of itself, is that it links little; has very limited operating hours (is 217 congested on Saturdays? Too bad, because Commuter Rail will be parked. Holidays? Yet, train’s in the yard. Monday at 1:30 PM? Oh, don’t count on that train, it won’t show up for hours.); has poor transit connections (again – Tualatin is a “we hope to” town for transit – if you work out Tualatin-Sherwood Road, how do you get from the Rail station to work, when there is no local transit? If you want to get to Washington Square to get some shopping done, you have to carry your purchases on a bus, then off the bus, on the train…) Any time advantage will be lost from I-5 to the Wilsonville station…where is it? It isn’t adjacent to Wilsonville Road.