The Lake Oswego transit alternatives analysis hasn’t settled on a mode yet, but if Streetcar comes up as the winner, there are going to be some interesting choices for how to terminate the alignment.
In any case, the Streetcar will help spur development in the Foothills district between Highway 43 and the Willamette. There are also plans for a modest park-and-ride in all the scenarios.
The real question is where and how to use Streetcar to spur redevelopment in the existing core of the City.
The cheap option would stop near where the current Willamette Shoreline trolley terminates. This wouldn’t do much for development in downtown. 
Going to Albertsons creates some redevelopment opportunity and also leaves open the potential for a later extension to West Linn. 
Going to Safeway perhaps does the most for downtown redevelopment but is also probably the most expensive and is out-of-direction for further extension to the south. |
78 responses to “Streetcar Options in LO”
Chris –
I have an LO-streetcar alignment question, but it deals with the Johns Landing area.
I understand that Macadam is being considered as an alignment, rather than running through some of the existing residential communities.
I was wondering if a split alignment is being considered? Macadam doesn’t have a lot of room for ROW expansion, but it does have a median that could possibly support one track without removing auto lanes or widening the ROW more than a few feet. Is it possible or beneficial to run streetcars southbound on the existing tracks, but northbound in a dedicated lane on Macadam?
I would think that such a choice would A) offer two-track operation which would greatly improve schedule reliability and flexibility, B) provide dedicated streetcar ROW for minimal interference from traffic congestion, and C) have minimal impact on autos because no auto lanes would have to share with the streetcar through that stretch, and finally D) potentially halve the number of trains going through residential developments, and improve safety by having trains consistently come from only one direction.
As for your original question, whatever terminus is chosen, it is critical for West Linn transit users that transfers be as painless as possible… buses should arrive/depart from the same platform used by the streetcar (perhaps on the other side of the platform), southbound buses should wait for the arrival of a streetcar before departing (so that a transfer is always immediately available) and northbound buses should have direct communication capability with departing streetcars so that a slightly late bus can hold a streetcar departure so that transfers can occur smoothly.
In other words, the bus and streetcar should be treated as part of an integrated N-S route system with a common schedule and rider experience.
– Bob R.
This Streetcar route could be a big success and it could show that Streetcars have a greater potential for connecting our suburbs then MAX.
The next step of this route has to connect into West Linn. So the option shown that goes up to Alberson is my choice.
Bob, I haven’t heard anything about that option. I suspect there are two reasons for this:
1) Streetcar is conceptualized as operating in traffic. We don’t think we have a negative impact on traffic (at least no more impact than a bus), although concern about what happens to Streetcar when traffic congests is real.
2) A major benefit of putting Streetcar in Macadam is to remove objections from the condo owners in John’s Landing, and leaving one direction going past the condos (in some cases only a few feet away) is not going to provide this benefit.
Chris –
I understand Point 2, but regarding Point 1, I think lanes shared with rails in the street where traffic routinely exceeds 35mph would create new problems. It is one thing on existing slow-moving urban streets to have rails, but on a more auto-oriented arterial like Macadam the rails could lead to an increase in motor vehicle collisions due to loss of traction.
I have a car with ABS and traction control, and I have noticed that the systems engage even in slow stop-and-go traffic on the current streetcar tracks. The systems are trigger-happy and only activate for a split second, but they don’t activate under similar conditions on pure pavement. Wet steel rails do reduce traction when found underneath automobile tires.
– Bob R.
Bob, the traction issue is exactly why consideration of operating in Highway 43 south of the Sellwood Bridge has been eliminated. I think the judgement for the moment is that it’s not a safety issue in John’s Landing, but somebody ought to ask the question at a LOPAC meeting.
Macadam? Seriously? There’s an existing track in its own right-of-way that could accomodate 2-way streetcar service with strategic double-tracking, lots of accessible stations, and we’re talking about building brand new tracks out in busy, congested Macadam — why? Because people who brought property next to an existing railroad track don’t want relatively quiet rail traffic on it?
How much more would a Macadam alignment cost? And will the John’s Landing condo owners open their pockets to pay the difference, if it’s moved primarily for their benefit?
Is there not a bus that runs along Macadam? How is the demand? Could this project be a bit cheaper with 60′ articulated buses and maybe an extra lane on Macadam?
P.S. Street car does not “spur” development. Various subsidies on the properties do.
How much more would a Macadam alignment cost? And will the John’s Landing condo owners open their pockets to pay the difference, if it’s moved primarily for their benefit?
That’s certainly not the only factor – putting the line in Macadam would also attract ridership from the west side of the street, which would probably be dramatically diminished if the stops were all closer to the river.
And I certainly expect that we will look for a creative way to open the pocket books of the folks who would benefit from having the current alignment vacated.
Could this project be a bit cheaper with 60′ articulated buses and maybe an extra lane on Macadam?
LOPAC is definitely looking at bus options as part of the analysis.
Street car does not “spur” development. Various subsidies on the properties do.
I think that is a mistaken belief. The E.D. Hovee study (PDF, 110K) is pretty compelling.
I think the State Street extension is the obvious choice, ideally. It may be a Phase II extending from Foothills Park as far as Albertson’s or maybe even Marylhurst, depending on money. I suspect the initial job of running streetcar to LO would be considered complete with a Foothills P&R terminus.
If LO wants to think developmentally (and they always seem to), they’d pay for the State St. stretch themselves. I don’t think the A&B streets need development; they’re doing quite well on their own (witness the big Umpqua complex on B at 3rd, done in perfect harmony with LODC if not their First Addition neighbors–I think it looks pretty good). It’s State Street that has some options for upscaling.
Thanks for the pics! Who made them?
I would choose the second terminus which stops at the Albertson location. This gets you closer to the South Shore demand. I could see LO going higher density all the way over the hill to meet the density and lower income requirements of Metro. LO isn’t pulling their weight on lower income housing (separation is good in some minds). Those apartments/condos (+ six stories) will need a line down the road.
Go to West Linn first though with higher density, of course. Start now buying the ROW now South of LO for higher speeds (45mph and dependable).
Ray
The pictures came from a Metro PowerPoint that was used to brief the Steering Committee.
Do the numbers really justify Streetcar to LO? My guess is it would not be faster than the existing 35 line, which is a virtual express from LO to Johns Landing, except in heavy traffic. I would expect as well that it would not replace the 35 either. Streetcar, unlike MAX, offers little more rider capacity than the existing bus service, and is not much faster.
And while we can expect development in Johns Landing and in LO, there is a lot of territory in between with no development potential. Don’t expect highrise condos in Dunthorpe.
That said, there is clearly a limit to what hiway 43 can handle, and there is no money for more lanes…not that the Dunthropers would allow that; only poor neighborhoods are saddled with expressways.
Then we have this old RR ROW in public ownership. If we did not have this, there would be little talk of Streetcar. A dedicated ROW is not to be passed up lightly.
re running on Macadam…it would make for a better boulevard type road, just as Streetcar on the Burnside/Couch couplet will calm things. And it will definitely better serve the bulk of John’s Landing. If drivers tired on the occasional delay, they can park in LO or wherever and get on the Streecar.
Ironically the engine behind Streetcar to LO is the City of Lake Oswego…they want rail, not a bigger bus.
One last point, the real “employment center” of Lake Oswego is at the opposite end of the Lake…Kruse Woods…that is not even on Metro’s map, not to mention TriMet’s radar. Maybe we should we discussing the Barbur Blvd MAX to Tigard and Kruse Woods?
Lenny, you make a good point on the Tigard, and Kruse Way demand. Extensions to places like West Linn will need to wait for all main trunk lines being completed or on the drawing boards.
Hopefully, PDX to LO will use as much dedicated ROW as possible to kept the streetcar at 45mph for most of the trip until it reaches the South Waterfront area.
If Dunthorpe can’t have sewage, toxic dumps, or waste transfer stations in their back yards maybe they could handle a little evening and morning rumbling.
Ray
Yes Lenny, you hit the nail on the head. Kruse Woods is an economic powerhouse. Boones Ferry Road is booming as well.
An eventual streetcar extension to this area makes a lot more sense to me than heading out to West Linn. However, West Linn would really benefit from increased bus service to both Lake Oswego and Oregon City. There could even be an express bus linking West Linn to the South Corridor Max lines, wherever they may end.
My preferred Lake Oswego terminus is the one which includes a loop through downtown. This would also provide a circulator system for this emerging town center. Parking downtown is already tight, and the city could use the park and ride facility to bolster downtown shopping during weekends and the holidays.
I really hope this LO streetcar does not go ahead of any lines within the city core. It’s upsetting in so many ways that this project is even up for consideration. I wish the streetcar alignments would strictly concentrate on Portland lines that help neighborhoods connect with rail and add easier access for downtown bound trips.
Here’s to no on the LO!
OK, so the city/counties/Metro paid how much money to Southern Pacific for the Willamette Shores line (a.k.a. the Jefferson Street Branch), and there is ANY discussion about NOT using it?
If the Jefferson Street Branch is off the table, I sure hope that that ROW is sold off and the profits returned back to the coffers.
This is yet another perfect example of putting rail projects over anything. Does the ridership justify it? Is the 35-Macadam line (and the several other bus routes that connect Portland to Lake Oswego and continue to Tualatin) bursting at the seams like my 7:15 PM line 12-Barbur bus? Does the 78-Beaverton/Lake Oswego truly make a dent in the Kruse Woods commute numbers?
Meanwhile, I can’t even get to my own town’s city center, and my commute requires me to stand on the side of a highway with little shelter for 15 minutes (if both busses are on time) to continue my journey on the SAME route. Never mind the fact that for the last three days, the bus that I required to finish my journey was 15 minutes late consistently…
Guess our transit priorities are set…
Some questions:
1. What would the primary purpose be of this alignment? More LO Development or as a commuting vehicle? Maybe a mix of both?
2. Is the intention to have the Streetcar maintain some good speed and make decent time along this ROW? i.e. 40+mph for the majority of the trip south of South Waterfront?
As for some of the comments:
This Streetcar route could be a big success and it could show that Streetcars have a greater potential for connecting our suburbs then MAX.
The Streetcar with its drastically lower speeds and much higher costs cannot and should not replace MAX Services. In all physical ways it cannot anyway, it is at best a slow speed circulator and partially a development mechanism – sort of.
I have a car with ABS and traction control, and I have noticed that the systems engage even in slow stop-and-go traffic on the current streetcar tracks. The systems are trigger-happy and only activate for a split second, but they don’t activate under similar conditions on pure pavement. Wet steel rails do reduce traction when found underneath automobile tires.
Excellent observation Bob R. It is true that rails and rubber do NOT mix in any remotely higher speed (over 10 mph) environment. If the rails go in Macadam, we’re not talking about oopsie type accidents, we’ll end up with deaths. End of story. So right of way being maintained solely for Streetcar is of major importance. Even if the speed is reduced it would be horrible to impede traffic and the STreetcar with slower speeds than what currently exist on Macadam.
Because people who brought property next to an existing railroad track don’t want relatively quiet rail traffic on it?
Those people should have never had an expectation that living near a rail line right of way would mean they would not have to deal with rail service again. They should have read the laws, been prepared, and realized that when the city bought the ROW (whether that should even be legal is a different story) it would possibly act as any other railroad Corporation would and put service back in on the line. Far as I’m concerned, they have no right to this false expectation of no services being utilized on someone else’s property.
That’s certainly not the only factor – putting the line in Macadam would also attract ridership from the west side of the street, which would probably be dramatically diminished if the stops were all closer to the river.
If crossing the street is a big problem to get to the Streetcar I’d have to say that some over street crosswalks might be needed more than attempting to stick the Streetcar smack in Macadam or such other out of the way extension from the current ROW.
And I certainly expect that we will look for a creative way to open the pocket books of the folks who would benefit from having the current alignment vacated.
I’m not going on a tirade on the indecency of such moral turpitude as to take more from people that may or may not want something. If only we could just free the transportation industry again… hmpf. Hopefully, PDX to LO will use as much dedicated ROW as possible to kept the streetcar at 45mph for most of the trip until it reaches the South Waterfront area.
A 45 mph speed is VITAL to making the Streetcar a REAL commuting option and not just some whimsical notion of spending vast amounts of money to move a few people. Which some could argue far too well if the Streetcar consumes more time to travel than say, the 35. It would really be good if it could beat competitive auto transit along Macadam at speed limits.
Maybe we should we discussing the Barbur Blvd MAX to Tigard and Kruse Woods?
If we where seriously worried about throughput, capacity, and increasing real revenue and ridership while reducing costs this would be a major and serious effort. This would easily have ridership similar to the west side MAX. I’ve had to pass on Kruse way opportunities multiple times because I jsut will not work somewhere that is more than a 2 mile round trip in a car. I technically don’t even want to deal with that much of a headache.
Yes Lenny, you hit the nail on the head. Kruse Woods is an economic powerhouse. Boones Ferry Road is booming as well.
Yup, ditto. It should be more than a priority, it should be a necessity for Tri-met & Portland Streetcar. Whoever and however one could get out there first. Hell, operational profit could almost be made during rush hour on this route!!
I really hope this LO streetcar does not go ahead of any lines within the city core. It’s upsetting in so many ways that this project is even up for consideration. I wish the streetcar alignments would strictly concentrate on Portland lines that help neighborhoods connect with rail and add easier access for downtown bound trips.
I personally have to agree with this also. LO Streetcar really should be a much lower priority. Even though I do think it would be nice to actually go to LO via Streetcar to enjoy the day. As it stands I wouldn’t go there on a bus, and won’t even imagine going to work there until something like the Streetcar is available.
Per what Erik Halstead Says
Yup, another MAJOR issue in transportation focus. A company would be going after ridership and connecting centers of possible ridership. Why isn’t there larger focus on getting something REAL setup for the #12 line – such as BRT, or even more seriously something like the #72 or #14, which I’ve heard rumored actually turn an operational profit during the rush hours. These are the lines that REALLY could use and operational cost decrease and capacity increase.
LO is nifty neat o. But not needed and a wasteful expenditure at this point in time.
Downtown extensions of Streetcar are far more important to actual ridership and usability.
Capacity increases on #12, #14, #72, #14 and other high ridership lines are VASTLY MORE IMPORTANT and should receive much more focus very soon. i.e. Public Transportation needs to refocus on primary priorities of serving the public, reducing costs (Trimet is kinda good at that), increasing throughput and capacity, and being cleaner and cleaner for the environment. All things a private company like Toyota has to do to exist, or a company like GM doesn’t do and dies. Hopefully public transit can follow the path of Toyota and become a real powerhouse.
In a simple whimsicle thought, that probably will never happen in my lifetime, it’d be amazing to see better than 15% of the population relying on transit for their primary commute, primary activities, and 24hr service in Portland.
Adron, I think the basic logic of Streetcar in this corridor is:
With Streetcar (and MAX) you always have the tradeoff of access versus speed. The more you stop to provide access, the slower you make the trip. Streetcar will move very quickly through Dunthorpe, the real question is how much do we slow it down in Johns Landing, including the question of whether to operate in Macadam.
Over time, Streetcar will certainly be faster than the 35 because the 35 will continue to get slower with auto congestion.
Like Charlie Hales said…planning is nice, but opportunity is what drives this stuff; a constricted road and a publicly owned rail ROW is hard to walk away from.
If Streetcar operates in Macadam it might serve more John Landing folks, but will be slowed by traffic…assuming it does not have its own lane.
Indeed, without its own ROW it can come to a complete stop in really bad peak traffic…there goes reliability. Maybe we need to buy some condos for resale as affordable housing along the rail ROW in Johns Landing…make the same offer as the City did to folks on Gibbs.
Down in LO…I like the loop through their downtown, on there dime of course. I think extension to West Linn is a pipe dream…an extension along the existing rail line to Kruse Woods area via downtown LO should get more traction. That would be fun.
PS everyone should ride the historic streetcar along the Jefferson Street alignment to LO come spring…I think they shut down for winter. Some great views into the grounds of Dunthorpe villas; another problem area?
PPS when we do get around to talking about high capacity transit in the Barbur corridor, ROW or lack there of will be the key issue.
Erik said:
“This is yet another perfect example of putting rail projects over anything. Does the ridership justify it? Is the 35-Macadam line (and the several other bus routes that connect Portland to Lake Oswego and continue to Tualatin) bursting at the seams like my 7:15 PM line 12-Barbur bus? Does the 78-Beaverton/Lake Oswego truly make a dent in the Kruse Woods commute numbers?”
This is a result of the railfans and their acolytes in Trimet and Metro who control the transit agenda here, trying to put their hobby in the street.
A BRT could be done for this route much more easily, and there are now hybrid vehicles that are much quieter for the “residental” areas. Plus,
NO DAMN TRANSFERS, as BRT can offer tailored service.
A start could be made by running regular buses on Macadam with signal preemption.
One idea which needs be thrown into the LO transportation planning mix is an eastside route using the P&W tracks and the “forgotten” railroad bridge. This line would tie into the Milwaukie Max and then after LO would could continue on to Tigard for connection with the Wilsonville/Beaverton rail which is currently being developed on P&W tracks.
The connection to Milwaukie MAX via the “forgotten bridge” is being studied by Metro staff (separately from the LOPAC process).
I don’t understand how BRT could work without additional right-of-way (which is not available)?
Chris said:
“I don’t understand how BRT could work without additional right-of-way (which is not available)?”
Is the rail ROW needed for any freight movements?
If not, use it for the peak direction in rush hour and let the buses return on 43 and Macadam in the other driection.
I’m not sure that the easements under which the Willamette Shoreline right-of-way is maintained are transferable to buses.
And if the folks in Dunthorpe are already uneasy about a Streetcar, I can imagine how they would feel about a diesel bus :-)
One idea which needs be thrown into the LO transportation planning mix is an eastside route using the P&W tracks and the “forgotten” railroad bridge. This line would tie into the Milwaukie Max and then after LO would could continue on to Tigard for connection with the Wilsonville/Beaverton rail which is currently being developed on P&W tracks.
Remember that this is an active railroad route used by two freight trains daily in each direction, and there is no alternative route for freight traffic from Washington County except via Cornelius Pass; and that this railline is the desired route for the P&W traffic on its former Oregon Electric lines.
However – I’ve long felt that this route would make an excellent corridor to connect Sherwood, Commuter Rail (at Tualatin), Streetcar/Trolley (at Lake Oswego) and MAX (at Milwaukie) – as long as the project is done as a “low cost” project – for example, using refurbished RDC cars instead of the $3M+ Colorado Railcar DMUs – or a pair of the Bombardier “Talent” low-floor DMU vehicles (which would require freight train positive separation), smaller stations, and no park-and-ride lots (since it’s designed to connect multiple modes of public transit). And only one passing siding (the existing siding at Bryant, located off of Boones Ferry Road work work).
Chris said:
“And if the folks in Dunthorpe are already uneasy about a Streetcar, I can imagine how they would feel about a diesel bus :-)”
As I said in my previous post: “…and there are now hybrid vehicles that are much quieter for the ‘residental’ areas.”
Anyway, we could start off right away by giving the regular buses on #35 signal preemption.
I’m all for signal pre-emption. You might need some right-hand bypass lanes to make it work.
“I’m all for signal pre-emption. You might need some right-hand bypass lanes to make it work.”
If only we could get some for certain sections of the current Streetcar line. The south bound 5pm commute is gonna be a bitch on the LO Streetcar if they’re all stuck at Powell’s as I see far too often.
Speaking of that, with the proposed LO route and such, is there real plans to do something about the circulation?
Also, are we actually going to see a price reduction and American production of these Streetcars or is Portland determined to keep buying the most expensive things possible?
Also – What type of car increase are we talking about to provide any type of decent frequency to and from LO? How many millions per year will it cost based on current cost figures
If we don’t figure out how to get Streetcar vehicles under the “buy America” provisions, we won’t get any federal dollars, so I think it’s a certainty that we’ll figure that out :-)
As for operating costs, we haven’t even selected a mode yet, it’s a little early for detailed budgerts.
…it is critical for West Linn transit users that transfers be as painless as possible… buses should arrive/depart from the same platform used by the streetcar (perhaps on the other side of the platform), southbound buses should wait for the arrival of a streetcar before departing (so that a transfer is always immediately available) and northbound buses should have direct communication capability with departing streetcars so that a slightly late bus can hold a streetcar departure so that transfers can occur smoothly.
Guaranteed connections would be wonderful to have anywhere on the system, not just in Lake Oswego. What I hear though is its too tough to schedule for that, because if one train is delayed, they have to delay them all to avoid crashes.
A 45 mph speed is VITAL to making the Streetcar a REAL commuting option…
On the Saturday the Streetcar opened to Gibbs, the operator said the streetcar’s top speed is 35 MPH.
This is yet another perfect example of putting rail projects over anything. Does the ridership justify it? Is the 35-Macadam line (and the several other bus routes that connect Portland to Lake Oswego and continue to Tualatin) bursting at the seams like my 7:15 PM line 12-Barbur bus? Does the 78-Beaverton/Lake Oswego truly make a dent in the Kruse Woods commute numbers?
78 Doesn’t serve Kruse Way – that would be the Weekday rush-hour only 38-Boones Ferry. 78 runs on Kerr Rd., and if memory serves me correctly, the terrain prohibits one from walking to/from Kruse Wy. Lower Boones Ferry Rd. has M-F only service via 37-Lake Grove, which TriMet is monitoring closely due to low ridership.
As for the Barbur Blvd./Pacific Hwy. corridor… the only decent service there was 95X (last day of service will be 1-12-07), cancelled due to Portland Transit Mall construction. Oh, you wrote 7:15 PM… I’ve been out that direction recently at around that time… much, much busier than it used to be.
Could this project be a bit cheaper with 60′ articulated buses…
I think transit as a whole in the metro area would be better around here with 60-footers. I think the main problem with them is the memories of the old ones, which TriMet now says the manufacturer selected was a poor decision by its previous management. (This is a little off-topic, but at the get-together earlier this month, Jim K. [sorry Jim, I don’t remember how to spell your last name!] had an article from a Seattle paper that said 40-footers manufactured around the same time by the same company, MAN, polluted more than if every rider on a full bus instead drove an SUV.) I don’t think this would be a problem now, since New Flyer makes several 60′ models.
Now, TriMet says it’s not in the budget. But, building MAX and replacing every single bus stop sign on a telephone pole with the half-circle design on its own post is. Just something I’m throwing out there to consider.
Right on, Jason!
With BRT, a lot of transfers become moot, as the bus can leave the POW and traverse city streets to drop off people. But you won’t see it here in Portland as long as the rail cabal is calling the shots. Notice how MAX won’t run an express bus anywhere near a MAX line.
Also, doesn’t New Flyer build American?
…(D)oesn’t New Flyer build American?
Yes, TriMet uses ‘Buy American’ Federal dollars to help purchase them.
http://www.newflyer.com/index/st_cloud
http://www.newflyer.com/index/crookston
And, they definitely make 60′-ers that are really out there:
http://www.transit-rider.com/bus/newflyer.cfm?id=d60
http://www.transit-rider.com/bus/newflyer.cfm?id=d60lf
http://ltd.org/search/showresult.html?versionthread=91a9a11313910620861b5f2c1d51daff
http://transit.metrokc.gov/am/vehicles/a-diesel.html
http://transit.metrokc.gov/am/vehicles/nf-a-low-floor.html
http://transit.metrokc.gov/am/vehicles/hy-diesel.html
(apologies for all the links!)
Notice how MAX won’t run an express bus anywhere near a MAX line.
You probably mean TriMet won’t run an express bus anywhere near a MAX line. However, one agency in the area already does, and has no plans to discontinue express bus service near light rail, even if it does extend into their service area – C-TRAN.
discussed this with Rick G many months ago, possibly best if tri-met would develop the LO line, as they have the power to ED for a second track, porbalby needed if regulaR service is to be constructed…
Well TriMet is down to three express busses that don’t serve OHSU after the 95 goes – the 92 South Beaverton Express, the 94 Barbur Blvd. Express, and the 99 McLoughlin Express. (The 96 Tualatin/I-5 Express runs local the second it gets off the freeway.)
Forest Grove/Cornelius? Forget it. Troutdale? Nope. Gresham? You have MAX, so shut up. Estacada? Why do you need an express?
I had admired TriMet for using the LO Streetcar as a way to use an existing right-of-way but the more I hear about it, the more it sounds like the Willamette Shores/Jefferson Street Branch alignment won’t be used. If that’s the case this is just another rail ploy, that somehow won’t get fully funded until TriMet dips into its capital reserves – which means another round of bus service cuts.
My wife and I are already taking about purchasing a second car, so that I can get to work without a 90+ minute ride on a TriMet bus for what takes me 20-25 minutes by car. I’ve gone this long with only ONE car for our household to do our part towards local traffic congestion/pollution mitigation, but TriMet is really forcing my hand right now.
Never mind the fact that I hold a TriMet annual pass.
And when Trimet opened West Side MAX, I read that some people went back to driving, rather than take a bus and MAX.
I hope that all of you railfans on this board are proud of our transit system being decimated just so that you can have your choo-choos.
Nick, I appreciate that you have strong feelings about rail vs. other modes, but you are treading very close to our rule about keeping personalities out of the discussion.
You’re welcome to discuss all of the policy aspects of rail, but imputing motives to other participants in the discussion is not welcome.
I think Nick is raising the point that there is only so much money to go around. So how do we get the most accomodative transit system—and at the same time lure more drivers out of their cars?
OK, Chris, I see your point about the members on this
board. However, imputing motives to the people who control the transit agenda at Trimet and Metro should be fair game, as I see imputations going on all the time in the discussions.
Distinction noted. However, I think you’d get further talking about TriMet or Metro than using an arbitrary label that blurs who you’re talking about.
I am not one of the day to day transit users but I support transit and want it to best serve the people and I know that it has to meet the peoples needs or they revert to using other methods, most often cars.
For a person like me and my family we need all other modes then cars to be attractive so that our experience with our car is reasonable with the teast negative impact on the environment.
All modes MUST BE REASONABLY ACCESSABLE and that is just not the case in all of the Metro/Tri-Met area. In addition the time and implications to the use of alternate modes must be reasonable as in the comparison to where a bus is connected to LRT and transfer is taken to another bus or a walk of long distances needed to get to work or to appointed place. If the transit method takes 90-minutes and a direct connect with a car is 30-minutes we have problems. This is Lose – Lose!
People cannot be asked to get out of their car or can be expected to limit its use when we all know that many truly do not have an option. For my wife and I that is the case. But everytime I need to go downtown I drive to the most convenient MAX station and eliminate the hassle and/or cost of parking and that makes MAX worth it.
I think MAX has been miss-applied with too many stops and streetcar extensions would be a better application of transit rail. The westside MAX should have included a loop to highway-26 with a express link with a few stops that gets people to downtown or out to Hillsboro twice as fast as it does right now. With this application where going to Hillsboro or to the end/terminus one is express and the other is the current milk run.
Milk runs are better serviced by Streetcars and buses. If MAX/LRT is not competitive in the time that it takes when it is compared with express bus service then something must be done to change MAX/LRT to make it competitive and that maybe eliminating/consolidating some of its stops so that it is faster end to end.
If the service equation of all alternate modes are not right, effect, competitive and reasonable people cannot be expected to get out of their cars.
This comes to the point in that we know that we are not at a point to where the service equation of all alternatie modes is there, so we keep addressing all choke points of all of the alternate modes and methods and in balance we MUST start re-investing into our roads and highways in a balance as to their use as in a percentage of the total population in an incident of travel analysis would tell us.
If rubber tired vehicles incidents of travel are 90% of all incidents of travel we should be accomidating and investing into infrastructure at close to the proven level of need. When we go out an invest into other modes that is good but the burden of proof in these investments must be based on proven logic and fact that shows that these alternate modes accually get people out of their cars.
A good example is Bike Paths and Blvd. that have allowed so many people to get to work, often downtown without the use of a rubber tired vehicle and taking space on our roads. To me this has shown a great return on investment. A lot of people do no understand it but if all of these people got off their bikes and started using cars we would be in trouble with more capacity constraints. Tunning the needs of bicyclist commuter can result in even greater use with limited investment and that is smart use of our money.
My problem with the biking community is that they do not know how to create a win – win environment and by that I mean that the majority still does not respect their impact on the total picture of transportation in our region. They need to come up with a plan to where this community is shown to be supporting with their own dollars pot some of the investments. It is like matching dollars would go a long way.
Can anyone tell me why Streetcar is being considered to go to Lake Oswego? It seems to me that the Streetcar would be too slow to be a viable commuting option between downtown Portland and the smaller LO town center. The original purpose was to provide “downtown circular traffic,” right? So then why are we even considering this type of expansion of service? Even if it could go 45 mph, buying the right of way would be really expensive. Why is it that we put putting a steetcar down the Willamette as a priority while the people along Barbur Blvd and Pacific Highway out to Tigard are underserved by viable transit options? They are the people with lower incomes anyway. Why not allow them to be more connected with downtown services instead of, in my opinion a bunch of rich people in LO?
Some clarification would be nice.
buying the right of way would be really expensive
A coalition of local governments already owns the Willamette Shoreline right of way.
If MAX/LRT is not competitive in the time that it takes when it is compared with express bus service then something must be done to change MAX/LRT
The two are not the same service. Express service gets people from one point to one other point. Max serves trips all along a corridor. Can you fill a bus from Hillsboro to downtown? Probably. Can you fill it the other direction? Maybe not. But the question is whether the public should pay for a second alternative for some trips instead of providing service somewhere else. I’m not sure the answer to that is obvious one way or another. But I think it is clear reducing the level of service that Max provides is not the answer.
Why don’t they have a water taxi going up and down the Willamette from Portland to Oregon City? That would be a really cool low cost alternative to the rail frenzy that is really just making the traffic problem worse by slowing down traffic.
Actually, LOPAC looked at river transit and removed it from further consideration. It’s been studied a couple of times. The chief problem seems to be that there’s no good place for a landing that people could actually get to easily.
The chief problem seems to be that there’s no good place for a landing that people could actually get to easily.
You mean that big long dock at that brand new park on Lake Oswego’s riverfront is not a suitable location for a boat to…well…dock?
Or the downtown Portland seawall? Or the old fire boat dock near the east end of the Hawthorne? Or the waterfront area in downtown Milwaukie? Or the waterfront area in downtown Oregon City (no more than a two block walk from Oregon City’s transit center)?
Let’s see here:
Water Taxi: Cheap and obivious, but doesn’t generate the bucks.
Highway/bus: Cheap and obivious, but doesn’t generate the bucks.
LRT: Too “urban” for Lake Oswego. (Think: Rockwood.)
Streetcar: Chic and hip, just right for Lake Oswego. But the WST route (the already owned route) is “not suitable” by some odd definition, so let’s find a really expensive way to bring streetcar to L.O. by tearing up a state highway. (Then the L.O. folks will complain about not getting their share of state highway dollars because no state highway would pass in, through, or near Lake Oswego (since building the Streetcar on the route would most certainly force the city to take over maintenance of it), and want ODOT to somehow give them money.)
If L.O. wants Streetcar, I’m sure they can find a way to pay for it. All I want is a freakin’ bus that shows up reliably and frequently, but that seems to be a problem.
You mean that big long dock at that brand new park on Lake Oswego’s riverfront is not a suitable location for a boat to…well…dock?
I know one of the considerations is whether there was land for a park-and-ride.
I’ll see if I can dig up an electronic copy of the prior analysis.
I take the Max downtown and the 35 to work from Beaverton nearly every day I don’t ride my bike. The 35 is a joke. Only runs every 1/2 hour and is full in the mornings.
I personally am a fan of rail options. Especially in this area. The “pinch” that the west hills makes on macadam makes traffic on this road a highway. There are tracks already going to LO, so lets use them before the people near the tracks say no way.
The route would be a tourist attraction because of the beautiful view of the river in an area little seen by people.
I’m not a big fan of rail to the rich. However, this one makes sense on a practical level. We need to grab the rails back where we can for the future.
Bus service, well those of you who say bus service is being cut for rail. On the west side there are only 4 ways into town (Sunset, Beaverton-hillsdale, I-5, and Macadam). The west hills prevent any other traffic. It makes sense, on the west side, to direct all riders from local bus routes to the rails, then into town.
~n
The central problem with a water taxi is that it doesn’t go where people work and live. Its a long hike from Waterfront park to most of downtown and the offices where people work. Likewise a dock in Lake Oswego is a long way from where people work and live. That kills the ridership projections. People would rather take a bus that gets them closer to where they need to go.
nborders said:
“Bus service, well those of you who say bus service is being cut for rail. On the west side there are only 4 ways into town (Sunset, Beaverton-hillsdale, I-5, and Macadam). The west hills prevent any other traffic. It makes sense, on the west side, to direct all riders from local bus routes to the rails, then into town. ”
No, it doesn’t make sense. Pave the West Hills tunnel for dual-use operation with hybrid buses,
vastly increase through-put through the tunnel, and give many more people a one-seat ride to downtown. Taking a feeder bus to a slow MAX train is a major turnoff for many people, including the mayor of Hillsboro (see last years Tribune article).
Pave the West Hills tunnel for dual-use operation with hybrid buses
Nick, you’ve mentioned this several times before and I’ve taken a closer look at the tunnels, and I just don’t think this is possible.
First, there isn’t room to put adequate shoulders, the tunnel floors just aren’t wide enough. Buses steered by human beings need a wider right-of-way to avoid sideswiping the tunnel walls.
Also, no hybrid bus yet constructed can travel 3 miles uphill without the diesel engine kicking in. At the very least, ventilation would have to be changed in the westbound tunnel, or you’d have to use “dual mode” buses instead of hybrids and string more catenary wires, like in the Seattle Bus Tunnel. But this doesn’t solve the problem of shoulders.
Right now, MAX trains use the tunnels on 6 minute headways, and these trains are pretty heavily utilized. Sticking in a few buses (which only carry about half or even a third as many people as a two-car MAX train) wouldn’t increase capacity substantially, especially if you have to slow speeds to a crawl to operate safely.
– Bob R.
I used to think the same thing about the West Hills tunnel until I saw Seattle’s bus subway tunnels, and they appeared much smaller than I thought they would be. I was surpised at how fast the operators drove through what appeared to be narrow clearances.
I was surpised at how fast the operators drove through what appeared to be narrow clearances.
They didn’t drive 55mph, the speed at which MAX operates in the west hills tunnels. To run buses in there without adequate shoulders means lower speeds for everyone.
– Bob R.
After the defeat of South/North MAX in 1998 (it passed in Portland, but not in Washington and Clackamas counties), Metro did a thorough study of every option except MAX in the Milwaukie corridor. After a year of public outreach the demand for MAX being included in the study was so strong from SE Portland as well as Milwaukie residents, that it was put back in. You can find this on Metro’s website I am sure; BRT has comparable construction costs and higher operating costs than lightrail.
There was also an ODOT proposal for HOV lanes on McLaughlin…adding a third lane in the Moreland area…that aroused tons of community opposition. Express buses without HOV lanes are not really express.
My point is that we have MAX, not because of some cabal, but because people like it, want it and vote for people who support it.
For me both BRT and Express buses have fatal flaws…the former is a 2nd class product compared to lightrail…a gussied up bus, and the latter offers no intermediate stops between origin and destination.
But I promise to keep an open mind if we agree to take a look what kind of high capacity transit would work in the Barbur corridor…I just think I know what the answer is.
For those asking about River Transit, the last Metro study was part of the South Corridor study process. Here’s the river transit option that was evaluated:
Here is the conclusion:
Bus service, well those of you who say bus service is being cut for rail. On the west side there are only 4 ways into town (Sunset, Beaverton-hillsdale, I-5, and Macadam). The west hills prevent any other traffic. It makes sense, on the west side, to direct all riders from local bus routes to the rails, then into town.
So, I, as a resident of Tualatin, should be forced to take a TRAIN to Beaverton (during the whopping three hours of operation that it is to be scheduled when it comes online in 2008), or a BUS to Lake Oswego to transfer to a TRAIN – either way to get to my office downtown?
Never mind the fact that even in traffic I can get from Tualatin to PSU in 20 minutes. The bus, if ran on schedule, takes 40 minutes. The express bus, if it stopped at my home, is 30-35 minutes (but thanks to TriMet, the only way I can catch the express bus is if I (gulp!) drive to a park-and-ride lot. So much for “congestion mitigation” – can anyone say “Pacific Highway and Durham Road?”) But either of the pro-rail options would not only divert me well away from my destination, but would add even more time to my commute than what currently exists on my bus route. Such is a very purverse way to grow rail ridership, by force and not by choice made by the inherent qualities of each mode of transport.
The Willamette River Greenway goal generally discourages intensification of urban uses within the boundaries of the Willamette River Greenway, the locations of the river transit stations.
I think we threw out that “goal” when SoWa was planned, and for every discussion of relocating I-5 away from the Willamette River (because one of the prominent purposes of that idea is to “free up land for development”.)
And what about the Terminal 1 redevelopment?
Terminal 1 has always perplexed me and I suspect it was a major goof in our zoning code.
But as for the Greenway, there is a considerable setback from the river that the developers in SoWa had to maintain.
I’m more persuaded by the “the users don’t live near it” argument. That’s the same reason I think we would get more bang for the buck running Streetcar in Macadam in Johns Landing, you’ll pick up a bigger potential ridership location.
Good post, Erik: very informative.
And try and tell me there is no “rail cabal” at Trimet and Metro. By the way, I did not originate that term, as it applies to Trimet and Metro. Their actions tell me that there are probably people over there trying to put their hobby in the streets, at whatever cost to the ridership.
Every time a new rail line opens around here, service is degraded somehow. This is what I mean by decimation of the transit system. The numbers prove it: transit’s share of the market here is not growing.
The numbers prove it: transit’s share of the market here is not growing.
Since TriMet Fiscal Year 1987 (when MAX first opened) through FY 2005, TriMet system Originating Rides have grown from 35,400,000 to 75,014,400 annually. (Originating rides do not count transfers, which eliminates concerns about “forced transfers” to MAX inflating ridership figures.) That’s an increase of 111%.
According to the Metro Regional Databook, Tri-County population in 1987 was 1,097,300, and was 1,484,150 in 2003. The Census estimate for 2005 Tri-County population is 1,541,170. The 1987-2005 increase is 40%.
Clearly, TriMet Originating Rides have far outpaced population growth during the period. The system is not “decimated” and the numbers do NOT “prove it” as far as your assertions are concerned.
(That does not excuse, however, TriMet FY2006 which saw an actual slight decline in originating rides for the first time in years. This is likely due to the combination of fare hikes and service hour cutbacks to make up for fuel costs and revenue issues, but other factors may also be involved.)
– Bob R.
I don’t know about that, and I have heard stories
about the veracity of Trimet’s figures. What I keep on reading is that transit’s share is still stuck in the single digits.
BTW, since I am transit obsessed to a degree and read every article that appears in the press that petains to transit, my New Year’s resolution is to save everything I come across for future documentation.
Often many attempt to re-hash topica and discussion points that are to all effect settled.
We have a good Light Rail and it is successful to most part. We have experimented with Streetcars and have found that they have gained a foot hold too in our transportation scheme.
I like Streetcars and think that they are have a greater opportunity to get closer and in front of people in manner where they can acheive a greater reduction in the use of motor vehicles.
With all of experimenting with transit in our region we have lost focus on the needs to provide adequate highway infrastructure. We must be pragmatic and understand that not every transportation mode and type mode maybe the perfect fit and balance needs to come into play.
I don’t know about that, and I have heard stories about the veracity of Trimet’s figures.
Thanks for the thorough refutation of the actual facts and actual numbers I presented.
Seriously, do any of these “stories” that you have heard provide a value or percentage or factor to adjust the TriMet figures? Are they overinflated by, say, 15%? 20%? TriMet figures would have to be falsified by a factor of over 51% for originating rides to trail population growth. That would be fraud on a massive, systemic, and easily provable scale. Where’s your proof?
Thanks,
Bob R.
We have a good Light Rail and it is successful to most part. We have experimented with Streetcars and have found that they have gained a foot hold too in our transportation scheme.
I am certainly not opposed to LRV or even Streetcar – in fact I think Streetcar to Lake Oswego (using the existing WST right-of-way in Johns Landing, and not on Macadam) with a loop in downtown Lake Oswego is a great idea. (Chris – I agree that the water taxi has some concerns, but I think it was dismissed too early – such a service could be initially started at a very low cost – even Seattle’s Elliot Bay Water Taxi is operated by the Argosy Cruise lines; ours could be operated by the Spirit of Portland line. If the ridership doesn’t happen, there’d be little to no capital cost because there are already public docks that exist at most of the locations, and the government wouldn’t own/operate the boat.)
What I am opposed to is the continual need to build expensive rail-based transit solutions which come at a cost to the bus service that the majority of TriMet’s riders use on a daily basis. I am personally impacted by the Clackamas County MAX extension (to Clackamas Town Center) because of TriMet’s need to stick MAX on the Portland Mall, which in turn caused TriMet to reevaluate all of its downtown bus routes, which in turn caused the elimination of one of my bus routes in Tualatin.
Further, when the Portland Streetcar was a City of Portland project, why is TriMet footing the bill for its operations? I have no problem with Portland paying TriMet to operate it (at cost), but TriMet spends over $4 million annually in subsidizing the City of Portland’s pet project. Where is Tualatin’s $4 million so that we can just have a simple bus to connect its western neighborhoods with the Commons and Meridian Park – I’d be happy even with a LIFT bus as the shuttle (a la the late 1990s era “The Local” busses). No – because TriMet ran out of money (on rail projects).
Lake Oswego already has a multitude of buses that serve the downtown core to downtown Portland, to Oregon City, and through its neighborhoods to connect to Tualatin and Tigard. If it wants a “sleek, hip” Streetcar, why doesn’t the city partner with Portland and create its own Streetcar with its own funding mechanism that doesn’t detract from TriMet’s own responsibilities to serve its ENTIRE network, not just what TriMet wants to serve?
Too bad the 96 doesn’t work from Tualatin…it offers 14 trips in the AM peak with 35 minute travel time from Mohawk P&R to downtown; isn’t TriMet keeping the 94X on Barbur?
The solution is high capacity transit on Barbur…we should start that campaign here with a good discussion of how to get the most bang for the pubic transit buck in that corridor.
PS When the Yellow Line opened in 2004 all service hours from the 5 bus were reassigned to other N/NE bus lines…there was no loss of service; indeed the 85 Swan Island went from 9 hours/day to 27.
Service cuts in the last two years have been driven by lower tax receipts and higher fuel prices. And, I believe TriMet should review and if necessary discontinue low ridership routes.
“The numbers prove it: transit’s share of the market here is not growing.”
I’m not sure what numbers I want to believe, because there are a mess of people on the light rail system and the busses are bursting at the seams during rush hour.
Also I can no longer even give a count of the places of work I have been where well in excess of single digits use transit to get to work. Just since returning to the region in the last year and some odd months I have worked 4 contracts and at each one the percentage of transit riders to SOV users was about 10% transit vs. 90% SOV at the worse and 60% transit and 40% SOV at the best ratio. The higher transit usage I’ve seen is always along the light rail.
I’ve also seen first hand that the lower income producing places (for instance, coffee shops and such) have about the same percentage of transit users along those lines as high income places (like Intel, Corillian, Nike). Those places all are pro-transit vs. SOV.
Strangely, the places that are more transit friendly always have calmer, more relaxed, more laid back, and more productive people.
but TriMet spends over $4 million annually in subsidizing the City of Portland’s pet project
I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but my recollection is that this number is just under $2M (certainly no where near $4M). The rationale is that TriMet would be providing new bus service in the Pearl and South Waterfront if Streetcar didn’t exist.
Adron –
Regarding the 2006 ridership decrease, it is at least perhaps the type of decrease that Erik is looking for. The overall share of TriMet system costs (operations costs plus system-wide administration costs) paid by fare revenues increased slightly to 24.9%, indicating that most of the passengers who left were the costliest to serve.
The trick now is to return to a period of ridership growth, with the majority of those new riders being served in a more cost-efficient manner than the ones who left.
– Bob R.
Bob R.:
Where I keep hearing about “single digits” usually refers to a percentage of work trips or total trips in the region. You gave trips in relation to population growth. Maybe there are a lot more trips being taken these days. From what I understand, people are driving a lot more these days also.
Sure, a lot of transit vehicles look crowded, but I think that is because the region is growing, not because Trimet is increasing its share of trips taken in the region, and don’t forget, they are running fewer trains to Gresham and Hillsboro.
Believe me, I have heard the single digit share agrument bandied about more than once in my years in Portland, and would not be bringing it up all on my own.
As for Trimet’s figures, there have been a lot of interesting discussions on Usenet about that subject, as I am sure you are well aware.
Bottom line: Based on many of the articles, arguments and anecdotes I have read/heard over the years, I think we would have been much better off here with a BRT system, starting with the bus mall in 1978, instead of this joke we call MAX.
More about those ridership and revenue numbers…
Overall ridership decreased by just under 1% (.093% if I did the math right), but the fare recovery ratio went from 22.6% to 24.9%, a percentage increase of 2.3%, or a growth rate of 10%.
Also interesting to note is that Rail ridership continued to increase… the entire decrease is attributable to bus riders. This is not too surprising, because the yellow line was only around for about a third of FY2006 but all of FY2006.
It should also be noted that rail revenue hours were cut by 5% but bus revenue hours were cut by 4%, so buses overall did not suffer the majority of the cutbacks.
To summarize, a service cutback of between 4-5% combined with a fare increase resulted in a ridership loss of about 1% but a fare recovery ratio growth of 10%. That indicates to me that however unpopular some of the cuts may have been, they were overall wise decisions from a financial standpoint.
– Bob R.
instead of this joke we call MAX.
We can argue all day about the relative cost and effectiveness of Light Rail vs BRT, but you’re not going to change anyone’s mind by calling MAX a “joke”.
I have been very careful in my skepticism about BRT not to label it a “joke”, although in some cities the implementation seems to only care about the “B” part and not the “RT” part. I’ve been open to see what happens in Eugene, as they are closely following the requirements for a true BRT implementation.
You are coming across as very set in your ways and eager to label those who support light rail as a “cabal” and the system as a “joke” and you continue to ignore actual numbers and sources presented to you and instead choose to rely on “stories” you heard on usenet.
– Bob R.
With all of experimenting with transit in our region we have lost focus on the needs to provide adequate highway infrastructure.
Part of the point of increasing transit use is that eliminating highway trips is far cheaper than adding highway capacity. There is really nothing inadequate with our current highways that cannot be fixed by making attractive, high-quality transit available for more trips.
Ross wrote: Part of the point of increasing transit use is that eliminating highway trips is far cheaper than adding highway capacity.
This is a very important point. I’ve often pointed out that widening I-5 from the Interstate bridges to the Marquam bridge would require a complete reconstruction of the freeway and most overpasses, ramps, etc.
I would love to see a cost comparison of doing this to a study of how many current Vancouver-based peak-hour(s) car commuters would switch to light rail, were it to serve Clark County, compared to the number of persons an additional through lane would carry at the same time of day.
I’ll even throw a BRT bone to Nick… if there were an additional lane on I-5 that were HOV/Transit (freight too?) oriented, I could envision a BRT service from Clark County running as “express” all the way to the Rose Quarter, with a freeway-shoulder “station” providing an easy link to the Rose Quarter Transit Center, and then having the buses continue on I-5 and diverge later to serve 3 areas not currently served by rail, such as transit/town centers in SE and SW.
Of course, the BRT ridership numbers and carpool numbers would have to pan out to justify limiting the additional through lane to only those users, otherwise it might be better to make it a general-purpose lane.
– Bob R.
Too bad the 96 doesn’t work from Tualatin…it offers 14 trips in the AM peak with 35 minute travel time from Mohawk P&R to downtown; isn’t TriMet keeping the 94X on Barbur?
The solution is high capacity transit on Barbur…
Sure, a lot of transit vehicles look crowded, but I think that is because the region is growing, not because Trimet is increasing its share of trips taken in the region
There is really nothing inadequate with our current highways that cannot be fixed by making attractive, high-quality transit available for more trips.
And therein lies the problem:
For me to take a “high quality” bus I must:
1. Drive from Highway 99W where it slices through the northeast corner of Tualatin, 3 miles east, to either the Mohawk or Tualatin P&R lots to catch te 96 (adds traffic congestion; no transit alternative available)
2. Drive up Highway 99W to the Bull Mountain P&R or the Tigard Cinemas P&R (adding two more trips on an already congested highway)
3. Relegate myself to the Line 12, which adds a minimum of 10-15 minutes additional travel time – notwithstanding the fact that line 12 service at my stop is only every 30 minutes, which means I must take an earlier bus to work – and encounter a 15-30 minute wait in King City for a connecting bus home (because the connecting bus has consistently been running late – yesterday the busses were 25 minutes late resulting in my cell phone’s Transit Tracker to read that Sherwood busses were 3, 6 and 9 minutes apart – how about running the darn busses ON SCHEDULE?)
When the busses don’t run on schedule, they end up picking up passengers who would have taken the next bus – that slows down the first bus, while the second bus picks up time due to fewer stops. So bus #1 is very full but bus #2 is empty or near empty. And all the downline passengers who just want a ride are further inconvenienced – more so because TriMet has removed the Transit Tracker readerboards from the transit centers, and TriMet no longer promotes their WAP Transit Tracker.
So TriMet’s infinitely crazy solution? I should drive to a park and ride. Well, is TriMet going to pay for an additional lane in each direction on Highway 99W between SW 124th Avenue (in Tualatin) and McDonald/Gaarde (in Tigard)? Or a new “West Tualatin” park and ride lot? Of course not – they are going to hold out for some rail solution (that would end in Tigard anyways, so my bus would likely get pushed further down the drain)
While there are some bus routes that are horrendously expensive to operate, TriMet has no motive or ambition to find a way to lower the cost of neighborhood routes like Seattle’s Metro has – by outsourcing/contracting certain routes (just like LIFT busses are; and in Seattle they us the same busses). TriMet’s Cedar Mill Shuttle service was greatly popular when it was operated by a taxi company and offered nearly all-day service. When TriMet took it over (due to pressure from the unions) the hours were slashed to rush-hour only.
But no one – not one person – can tell me that line 12 is in any danger of being expensive to operate in comparison to the passenger loads. Yet TriMet would rather sacrifice bus service (including line 12 and other heavily used routes) for more rail. Given the lack of riders on MAX west of Beaverton, maybe TriMet would do well to reduce service frequency west of Beaverton and east of Gateway to every 30, 45 or even 60 minutes; especially outbound trips to Gresham in the AM rush hour?
Bob R.:
You served up all sorts of statistics to make your arguments look credible, but I don’t think that they are really germane to the discussion; I am still looking at the real telling statistic: transit trips as a % of total trips (ca. 8% for the region, 44% of rush hour trips to/downtown). My understanding is that the percentage of trips has remained stuck in these percentiles over the years. Can you show differently?
And, lastly, just curious: how can Trimet calculate originating trips when I use a monthly pass, as a lot of riders do. The sensors in the door sure as hell don’t know the difference between first and subsequent boardings. Trimet can extrapolate any way they want to.
As for being set in my ways, when I moved to Portland in 2001, I had more of a railfan’s orientation if anything else, after 50+ years living in NYC. My “transformation” to pro-BRT (for Portland) has taken serveral years.
When I go down to Eugene to ride the new BRT, If I think if it’s a bad execution, don’t worry, I’ll let everyone know my opinion.
Erik…maybe you should move….seriously, it is very difficult and expensive to provide high quality transit to low density suburbs. So what do you think should be done with the 12 along Barbur?
Nick…I noticed an article about another study in the Metro section of the O re high capacity transit between Forest Grove and Hillsboro…looks like the cabal wins again…yes, lightrail is the recommended option.
How do you think BRT would work in the Barbur corridor? separate ROW? distance between stations? travel times? potential riders per vehicle? etc.
Erik…maybe you should move….seriously, it is very difficult and expensive to provide high quality transit to low density suburbs. So what do you think should be done with the 12 along Barbur?
Tell me where I can find affordable housing for me and my family between Portland (where I work), Beaverton (where my wife works), and Tigard (where my son goes to day care, and is the most affordable full-service day care center in the area – other facilities closer to our work want $400-600 more a month for the exact same services).
Affordable: 2 bedroom, 800 square feet or larger, with at least one covered parking space, low crime, under $750. (OK, under $800, I’ll settle for a slight increase).
And must be within 1,000 feet of a bus line that serves downtown Portland. (My current home is 735 feet as measured by Google Earth.) And will pay for me to break my lease before it expires in May.
Moving is much easier said than done.
But back to the Barbur Blvd. problem, there are a number of things that can be done:
1. De-combine the Barbur Blvd. and Sandy Blvd. routes. No reason that a construction or wreck near I-205 should affect my commute.
2. Busses should leave Union Station at :05, :20, :35, and :50 after the hour; this allows for those who get off of work to have a realistic chance of catching a bus without delay.
3. BRT would work excellently on Barbur/Pacific Highway – look at all the busses that already use Barbur out of downtown. Look at that glaring gap between Tigard, King City, Durham and Tualatin – there are numerous streets, high population densities – and NO BUS SERVICE. Why not??? All of these areas could be served by busses that otherwise continue up Barbur Blvd., providing frequent service on the trunk, and at least 30 minute service to the neighborhoods. Certainly not all of them have to operate mid-day or late nights.
Plus, the right-of-way is sufficiently wide from south of Tigard into Tualatin and Sherwood to add at least three more lanes – plenty sufficient for a carpool/HOV lane without sacrificing needed capacity for everyone else. Same is true for Barbur north of the 99W/I-5 interchange (where the traffic count drops off significantly), and from I-5 to 217 (because much of the original Capitol Highway (pre-U.S. Highway 99W) alignment still exists and is unused or is used as a frontage road). (See the road that leads to the backside of CarToys at Dartmouth; part of the parking lot at U-Haul; the side road that goes near (ahem) Fantasy Adult Video and the lumber company.)
The plans I’ve seen for LRV stop at Tigard TC – what about all the neighborhoods in which people live? Do we want to add more congestion on 99W so that people can drive to a park-and-ride lot? Do we want to remove needed capacity on 99W at the I-5 interchange and cause an even bigger bottleneck than what exists there (with over 50,000 ADT on 99W)? I don’t believe for one second that MAX will instantly grow bus service – TriMet’s Commuter Rail Project Manager told me face-to-face, when I asked him at a Town Hall meeting about connecting bus service to the Tualatin rail station: “I hope so.” WHAT? It hasn’t been planned?!!! In fact TriMet has no plans to re-route lines 76 or 96 to the station, either (in fact there is no way to build a bus stop on southbound Boones Ferry Road!! The sidewalk is going to be constructed on the opposite side of the tracks, because there is no room between the road curb and the raiload!)
4. Articulated busses and frequent service. TriMet should have NEVER cancelled its order for articulated busses. Why did they do it? Because their capital budget – which was supposed to pay for the busses – got sucked up by LRV (MAX and Streetcar) projects. Oops. TriMet used to place bus orders never for less than 50 busses at a time, and often 75-80 busses. The last three bus orders have been for 25 a pop, and instead of annual orders they have dropped to every 2 or 3 years between orders. Why can’t TriMet hold off on the Type 4 LRVs and use more single-car trains? Oh, wait, the Type 1s can’t be used by themselves (not ADA compliant).