In the draft policy language for the Regional Transportation Plan update, there is a 3-tier classification of transit service:
- High Capacity Transit (MAX)
- Regional Transit (connects regional and town centers)
- Local Transit (bus)
Streetcar was initially lumped in Regional Transit (along with TriMet’s frequent bus lines). While the proposed Lake Oswego Line might fit that role, I thought it was off-point for most of the ways we’re using and intending to use Streetcar.
So I submitted a comment memo, likely to be discussed as part of a workshop next week. I’d be interested in feedback on it:
To:TPAC Workshop Participants
From:Chris Smith
Date:22 January 2007
Re:High Density TransitAt the last meeting, I made a suggestion that the hierarchy of transit types should include an additional category: Circulator Transit. After further reflection, I think High Density Transit is a better name (it does not make preconceptions about alignment structures). I’d like to expand on this idea a bit to assist our further discussion of the topic.
Purpose of High Density Transit
Provide short-trip mobility in Centers and serve as a place-making tool to foster an urban environment in which system users have easy access to housing, jobs, shopping and entertainment. A virtuous cycle is created in which ridership fuels development which in turn provides more ridership.
The dense urban fabric served and created by High Density Transit provides an environment that offers access to closely spaced land uses by walking and cycling as well as transit. FAR utilization approaches 100% in new development along High Density Transit alignments.
Characteristics of High Density Transit
-Operates in Centers and on Main Streets
-Very High Frequency (sub 15-minutes headways, ideally 10 minutes or less)
-Ease of access (i.e., frequent stops) is more important than speed
-Employs some form of fixed guideway to attract development
-May operate in mixed traffic, does not require dedicated right-of-way
-Has high amenity valueLocal Examples of High Density Transit
-Existing Portland Streetcar alignment
-Proposed Streetcar Loop
-MAX between Lloyd District and Goose HollowI would be careful to distinguish between Streetcar as a vehicle type and High Density Transit. High Density Transit is about a service profile and the use of a fixed guideway.
While Streetcar serves this purpose admirably due to the capacity, scale and ride experience of the vehicle, Streetcar can also be operated as Regional Transit with greater stop spacing and use of dedicated right-of-way as is proposed in the Portland to Lake Oswego Transit Analysis.
In fact, the Lake Oswego proposal is a hybrid, with Streetcar operating as High Density Transit in Johns Landing and in Lake Oswego, and as regional transit in-between (much as MAX operates as High Capacity Transit outside the Central City and as High Density Transit in the Central City).
56 responses to “Streetcar and the RTP”
Chris –
Here are the two suggestions I mentioned yesterday at the CAC meeting:
1. A defining characteristic of High Density Transit should be that it facilitates development and increased density/activity along its entire linear route, rather than at station areas or other clusters defined by long distances between stops.
2. Some other transit advocates are referring to the use of streetcars for interurban or light-rail-lite style transit as “Rapid Streetcar”. This would apply to proposals for a Lake Oswego route, at least for the segment south of Johns Landing. Perhaps “rapid streetcar” would be a good differentiating term to show how the use of a streetcar-style vehicle itself does not necessarily constitute “High Density Transit.”
– Bob R.
Chris –
I have always thought of streetcar, and even Max downtown, as ways to extend the pedestrian environment. For instance, Max made Saturday Market and the Galleria part of the same shopping area. Streetcar initially extended the downtown walking area to Northwest Portland and PSU.
So while high density is part of the equation, I think the impact is to create very large, high density pedestrian oriented environments. They create not only a different kind of development environment, but a different kind of transportation environment.
It seems to me there are other ways to accomplish that same transportation function that don’t always involve a fixed rail solution. Nor does it seem to me that all the other characteristics you list are required to achieve that purpose. I think high frequency and ease of access are critical. But I think you will find a variety of places, like amusement parks, that achieve the extension of the pedestrian environment with circulator buses and other non-fixed track vehicles.
I realize those don’t have the same development potential. Which is why streetcar and Max often end up as better permanent solutions. But they also involve less capital investment. For instance some kind of circulator bus in the Washington Square area might spur far more pedestrian oriented development, especially once commuter rail is operating.
The following should be added to the list under: Characteristics of High Density Transit
– Does not impede, block, stop in front of, or otherwise further congest other traffic on the streets on which it operates.
– Not to be located on high traffic volume arterials and thoroughfares.
Terry –
What you are proposing may be a set of restrictions on the application of high density transit, but they aren’t defining characteristics.
I think what Chris is looking for is an answer to “how do you tell when something is High Density Transit” rather than “what places should High Density Transit be implemented and what limits should be put on its implementation?”
– Bob R.
Terry,
I agree with Bob. Chris’ intention is to define “High Density Transit”, rather than to dicate the specific operations of that transit mode.
However, I agree with you that it is important to maintain the traffic flow in thoroughfares.
I would advise that implementing a transit-only lane in certain situations, for example: MLK Loop, would provide more effective streetcar AND motor vehicle efficiency.
I like these definitions and I like Streetcars and I think that these definitions would also point to the advantage I see in extending Streetcars into Sellwood, Milwaukie, Gladstone and Oregon City.
At the same time, the same comparison and environment could be the Lake O route going through Johns Landing and ending up in West Linn.
What is the same is that they go past a lot of High Density Housing and just people. They would both get high ridership and get people out of their cars. They also go where people want to go, not bad.
I have to strongly disagree with the Portland Streetcar being designated as “regional transportation”.
The only reason that Streetcar is being planned to Lake Oswego is 1. MAX doesn’t go anywhere near Lake Oswego, and 2. Streetcar has been extended to the northern end of the old Jefferson Street Branch, so it’s the logical vehicle to continue south.
Beyond that, Streetcar and MAX are both light rail vehicles; except that the Portland Streetcar vehicles are designed for local traffic – less seating/more standee space, narrower vehicle, and slower top speed.
In the “old days” there was a difference between a Streetcar/Trolley (which was a local vehicle that predated the bus, and often went only a few miles outside the downtown core if that) and an Interurban (which travelled a considerable distance outside of the downtown core), and I would compare MAX as an interurban (serving Hillsboro, Aloha, Beaverton, Portland, Gateway and Gresham) and Streetcar as a trolley (serving downtown Portland, and potentially out Hawthorne and towards Johns Landing and maybe to Lake Oswego).
Further, Streetcar doesn’t connect any town centers; it is transportation within a town center. MAX connects the town centers (see above). If anything, MAX (between the Goose Hollow and Lloyd Center) takes on less of the regional and more of a local role; but such was true of the interurbans too (which in some cases even shared the same tracks as the trolleys in the inner city area).
Finally, I see that busses are all but not considered except for “local transit”. I had the opportunity to ride on a truly regional bus in Seattle last weekend, and I must say Seattle’s regional bus services puts TriMet to shame. TriMet operates a number of routes that are “regional” in nature (Anyone who has ridden the #12, #33 or #57 lines knows what I’m talking about), yet the physical bus is the same as one that operates a very short distance route.
Maybe the problem is that Portland all too often uses a “one-sized-fits-all” approach. High Capacity doesn’t equal MAX; Streetcar is not the solution to all problems. Both need to be taken into consideration (I strongly support Streetcar to John’s Landing and Willamette Park, for example, and potentially to Hawthorne) – but at the same time high capacity bus solutions MUST be a part of the study.
Again, anyone who rides the #12 or drives Highway 99W knows.
I think this is an important distinction. The lightrail lines between Lloyd Center and Goose Hollow are functionally equivalent to the current streetcar. It is a high density circulator. It can’t be accurately described as regional transit when it is within the central core. There are too many stops, there is too much cross traffic and it has to stop at redlights like the streetcar. This differentiation will help explain to the public how the surface LRT alignments through Downtown cannot work long term as the hub for a regional HCT network.
Again, anyone who rides the #12 or drives Highway 99W knows.
Erik – I commuted via the 12 from Northeast Portland to King City. I don’t agree with you. I certainly would have liked to have an express bus to provide that service. But I doubt there would have been enough riders to support it in either direction. If I was criticizing the 12 service in King City, it was that it did not run often enough.
I think Trimet has, rightly, focused its resources on creating high quality routes with less than 15 minute headways rather than a lot of half-empty express buses. But it still has a number of express buses that provide good service to downtown Portland.
I wish they could have kept the express buses when MAX was added to provide service for the same trips. But given limited resources, I would much rather see them add improved all day service than provide duplicate service.
I think local circulators that build regional centers would be part of a “regional” transportation plan. Streetcar contributes to creating the compact development the region 2040 land use plan calls for.
How transportation serves people and communities often determines how those communities will grow. It would be repeating the mistake of the interstate highways to treat impacts on the cities and neighborhoods as local concerns that are somehow distinct from regional issues.
The Westside Transportation Alliance did a survey of employees a few years ago that showed one of the primary barriers to people using transit was having the freedom to go out to lunch and run errands. Something that is not possible without an auto in a lot of suburban office parks. Developing pedestrian environments in regional centers that allow people to leave their auto at home is critical to the success of reducing dependence on automobiles. And providing local circulators may well be part of driving changes to create those pedestrian environments.
Erik said:
“Finally, I see that busses are all but not considered except for “local transit”. I had the opportunity to ride on a truly regional bus in Seattle last weekend, and I must say Seattle’s regional bus services puts TriMet to shame.”
>>>> Touché! I’ve been saying all along: the LRT here sucks, and BRT would have been a far superior solution to our transit woes here in Portland.
And I am really amused by people who call themselves “transit advocates” when the only transit they seem to want runs on steel rails.
Nick (non-driver & Trimet customer)
I am really amused by people who call themselves “transit advocates” when the only transit they seem to want runs on steel rails.
I have advocated for bus rapid transit in the past, but been convinced that it has very few advantages over rail in the corridors where rail has been considered a viable option.
BRT covers a pretty wide range of actual implementations from simple signal preemption to dedicated, tracked right-of-way. The capital costs of a tracked BRT right-of-way approach or exceed the cost of light rail. The low end BRT improvements aren’t really comparable to light rail. There may be situations where BRT is a better alternative to a proposed light rail line, but I don’t know of one that has occurred in the Portland area. In fact, the comparison in the Milwaukie to Portland corridor convinced a lot of previous light rail critics to become light rail advocates.
Regarding BRT, here is most of a comment I made yesterday over at the the Urban Planning Overlord blog… the numbers are very preliminary, but if anyone is interested in playing around more with the scheduling and the math, I might flesh it out into a full post for PortlandTransport:
——————
…BRT is not always less expensive than light rail for the same level of service.
It would cost as much to pave that I-205 transitway as it does to run tracks on it… much of the cost is for overpasses and other time-saving elements.
True, it is cheaper to run buses in shared lanes, but then the schedule is at the mercy of traffic conditions and you no longer have comparable service to LRT.
Further, although buses are cheaper, they last 1/3 as long as a LRV.
A two-car MAX train carries as many passengers at peak hour as 4.5 standard buses or 3 BRT-style buses. To provide the same level of service, BRT requires many more operators.
These operators could instead be allocated to provide better local bus service with frequent transfer to the higher-capacity rail line. In most scenarios, the distribution of service hours works out better for a rail-to-bus transfer system.
BRT only works for one-seat-rides if you happen to catch the one BRT bus that is going your way.
Consider:
Suppose you have a 5 mile trunk corridor (sort of like downtown to Gateway) and then branch out in 4 directions.
To serve the needs of the trunk corridor with 2-car trains operating 6 times an hour (10 min. headways) you’d need about 14 trains (allowing time for round trips and layovers at each end). That’s 14 operator-hours per hour.
Suppose each of the 4 branches are served by buses, and each bus makes a round trip including layovers in an hour, and you want to have a bus departing every 10 minutes. That’s 6 buses per branch, or 24 operator-hours per hour.
This system uses 38 operator hours per hour (at peak times). Worst-case transfer scenario: You have to wait the full 10 minutes for a train, and the full 10 minutes for a bus. Because of the built-in time for layovers, you at least get to sit on your bus during part of that wait. Median wait time: 10 minutes for train/bus combined.
Now, consider serving the entire thing with BRT buses offering one-seat rides.
To serve the same peak capacity on the trunk with articulated BRT-style buses requires up to 90 operator-hours per hour compared to 2-car trains, and we haven’t even served our branches yet!
This assumes a BRT bus departing along the trunk every 3.3 minutes, and continuing on to serve one of the 4 branches. Thus, 1 in 4 buses serves your desired branch, or one bus every 13.2 minutes. Also, you have to include the operator hours for the branches. This scenario averages about 4.5 buses per hour per branch, so about 18 operator hours.
Total for BRT: 108 operator hours per hour. Worst-case wait time: 13.2 minutes. Median wait time: 7.6 minutes.
That’s a 2.4 minute improvement over light rail, but at 2.8 times the operating labor cost! Further, those seeking to travel locally and not use the trunk portion of the service will have worse travel times because fewer buses per hour are actually serving the branches than in the light rail scenario.
So: 38 operator hours vs. 108 operator hours. With those 70 extra operator hours saved by light rail, we could more than double the frequency of our 4 branches, or better still, serve new areas, operate longer hours, how about serving 12 branches?
Those 70 operator hours add up. Granted, we are talking about peak periods, so lets say 5 total hours out of the weekday. Assuming a ballpark salary+benefit+admin cost of $50K per operator, you spend an extra $2.2 million per year on labor. Over a 30+ year lifespan for the rail system (some portions will last longer), there’s $66 million dollars extra for BRT for basically the same level of service.
Capital costs for dedicated, paved, grade separated right-of-way is comparable to rail construction. Capital costs for buses are cheaper, but you’ll have to buy at least 3X as many of them, and they last about 12 years so you’ll have to buy them 2.5X. Thus, the super-deluxe articulated hybrid BRT bus has to cost 7.5X less than a 2-car light rail train. It does, but not by much.
– Bob R.
Chris, you might consider including the value that circulators offer as ‘intermodal’ transit. That is, MAX patrons often require a transfer (intermodal) to complete some trips. A ‘circulator’ offers patrons the confidence that taking MAX to a station where a high density transit line will offer a convenient transfer. This point defends the streetcar as a regional transit component.
Circulators incorporated into transit system design can reduce cost of LRT construction. If an LRT line is prohibitively expensive to run directly to some existing or planned future development, a nearby and less expensive or less invasive LRT corridor can become equally viable when a connecting high density transit line offers a convenient transfer.
Circulators or high density transit can also eliminate the need for bus-oriented transit centers at LRT stations. The convenient transfer circulators offer high density districts reduces the need for duplicative and circuitous bus lines routed to an LRT transit center station. Anywhere along a circulator line, a peripheral bus line may make a more convenient transfer. Automobile parking can also be distributed along a circulator line, rather than solely at a LRT transit center, and serve parking purposes other than solely accessing LRT.
The digital schedule at Portland Streetcar stops offers patrons the assurance that the time they wait for the streetcar is known. The Portland Streetcar schedule is also more reliable because the streetcars do not pull out of a traffic lane as do buses, and because the fare system is simplified and boarding easier than buses. High density transit ought to reflect these advantages gained with fixed-rail.
You’re perfectly justified, Chris, to establish the definable purposes of high density transit or circulators, including the ones I mention. Go for it.
BRT may require more operator hours, but has the potential of attracting many more riders, IMO. And don’t forget the operator hours on the “feeder buses,” a lot of which are poorly patronized. (When is Wash. County going to get a REAL bus network?)
I think the bus to LRT transfers really make the service unattractive to many, like the mayor of Hillsboro, for example who was lamenting the fact the he had to ride a bus for 10-15 minutes, and then the MAX for 45-50 minutes to get downtown (on the “all stop” MAX, I might add) [Portland Tribune, June 2006].
BRT has much more flexibility; for instance, if the Banfield portion was BRT instead of LRT, you could operate both lanes in the same direction during rush hours, offering express service, and send the buses back on the auto lanes or local streets in the non-peak direction, if one so desired. And I’m not buying the stats about an LRT/bus ride out to East County taking “only” a few minutes than a one-seat BRT ride. Something tells me that the reality would be a lot different.
The Interstate MAX is not any faster the the old #5 bus as I remember, and to boot, many stops are 1/2 mile apart instead of every 2 or 3 blocks like before. Plus, now one has to transfer again to go to Jantzen Beach or Vancouver, and God only knows when the MAX will be extended. So, another service degredation due to the inflexibility of LRT.
I have said all along that you guys are too focused on operating costs, esp. driver salaries.
Instead, you should be focusing on providing the best possible service and attracting the maximum possible ridership to the system; well patronized buses will carry their weight financially, Anyway, an LRT vehicle costs about 10 times as much as a diesel bus.
Thus I am not impressed by people offering up all such of numbers and statistics, as these can be skewed and cherry-picked by both sides in an argument.
When I say that the LRT here sucks, that is my gut reaction as a transit rider, as I only take it when it’s the way to get someplace, and this is coming from someone who spent 50+ years in the VERY heavy rail environment of NYC, commuting to work for 35+ years on the subway.
Nick (non-driver & Trimet customer)
BRT may require more operator hours, but has the potential of attracting many more riders, IMO.
I see no basis for that opinion. The reality appears to be the opposite, people prefer rail.
I think the bus to LRT transfers really make the service unattractive to many
Transfers may discourage some people, but BRT doesn’t eliminate them. I think there is a basic misunderstanding here. You appear to be talking about a system where your local bus takes you all the way to your destination using some sort of dedicated right-of-way. I don’t see how that works.
have said all along that you guys are too focused on operating costs, esp. driver salaries.
Instead, you should be focusing on providing the best possible service and attracting the maximum possible ridership to the system;
Those two things are not separate. Ignoring operating costs, a perfect transit system would pick people up at their door and drop them off where they want to go. We have that for some people and providing it is very expensive.
I think the factors that determine ridership are proximity to a transit stop (1/4 mile seems to be the cutoff), frequency of service (15 minutes seems to be the minimum) and the speed and comfort of the trip. Having feeder buses to a high capacity rail line seems to meet all those criteria best in most circumstances, given limited resources.
this is coming from someone who spent 50+ years in the VERY heavy rail environment of NYC, commuting to work for 35+ years on the subway.
Portland’s density of transit use is nowhere near NYC. That is one of the reasons there is no subway. Moreover, the size and density of suburban residential development is nowhere near the NYC area. And the concentration of jobs in the central city is nowhere near Manhattan.
Nick –
I’m sorry you’re not “impressed” with numbers and statistics, but don’t accuse me of cherry picking, especially when you’ve provided no examples of your own.
Those of us who get “too focused” on operating costs and driver salaries do so because we recognize that service costs money to operate and we want for there to be the best service for the funds available. There is a lot of room for disagreement over what constitutes best service, but you can’t ignore operating costs. Operating costs come mainly from local dollars and are a big, big part of determining what services can and cannot be offered.
Nick, you are completely incorrect that Interstate MAX is no faster than the old #5 bus. By your own admission, MAX stations are placed further apart than bus stops. This alone would make MAX faster, but MAX also has its own dedicated ROW and signal preemption and does not have to pause between stops.
Someone once posted the #5 schedule here on PortlandTransport, but I can’t seem to find it. (Anybody got an old schedule they can photocopy for me? These comparisons come up occasionally and I’d love to have the exact numbers.)
I used to ride the #5 frequently and recall that it took about 35 minutes at peak times (assuming no traffic jams) to get from Lombard to central downtown. Interstate MAX does so in 23 minutes from Lombard TC to Pioneer Courthouse Square, and does so far more reliably.
Not going to Vancouver is a problem for Vancouver riders, to be sure, and one that should be addressed. However, service for Portland-area riders improved dramatically, as did ridership: TriMet’s 2004 ridership figures for the #5 bus were 6,830 weekday boardings. 2005 Interstate MAX weekday boardings: 11,351.
You frequently accuse me and others of being rail-centric or rail-obsessed, but the fact of the matter (as I’ve told you before!) is that I grew up in the Portland area, have been a frequent transit user since I was a kid, and have an appreciation for all modes of travel (including cars). I’ve stated repeatedly that I view buses as the important and necessary bread & butter of transit. But, because I advocate for MAX and streetcar for _some_ corridors, and am skeptical about the merits of “BRT”, you seem to think I’m biased and engage in “spin”.
I bought a house located not only near MAX, but directly on a bus line, which I use, and am in walking distance of MAX and 2 other bus lines, which are also utilized. None of this seems to mean anything to you because I also advocate for light rail, which somehow seems to disqualify me from having an trustworthy opinion.
Anyway, an LRT vehicle costs about 10 times as much as a diesel bus.
* Cost of a Siemens S70 LRV for the new Green Line project: $3.5 million. ($7 million for a 2-car train)
* Cost of a standard 40′ transit bus: $354,000 (“New Flyer” brand, 2005 price, very common)
* Cost of an articulated BRT bus: $960,000 (“New Flyer” hybrid BRT bus actual cost for Eugene’s new BRT system.)
Capacity at peak service:
* 2-car LRV train: 424 (212 x 2, Houston S70 specs)
* 40′ Bus: 82 (New Flyer D40LF)
* BRT Bus: 115 (New Flyer DE60LF)
So, to replace a loaded 2-car LRV, you need: 5 Standard 40′ Buses or about 3.5 BRT buses.
Initially, those buses will cost $1.77 million (40′) or $3.36 million (BRT). In the real world, buses only last about 1/3 as long as LRVs, so over the life of an LRV those buses would have to be replaced and the cost works out to $5.31 million (40′) or $10.08 million (BRT).
In this example, the capital costs for BRT vehicles actually EXCEEDS that of LRT, using recent, real-world costs. Regular transit buses would cost about 25% less over time than the LRVs, but you’d spend at least $400,000+ per year for the extra drivers required, which over 30 years adds up to $12 million!
I’m not spinning, Nick, these are real numbers.
– Bob R.
Thanks Bob for again offering some real numbers on this debate. I know from being a veteran of the Interstate corridor pre and post MAX that there is just no comparison between the old 5 and the Yellow; its like going from a beater pickup to a Volvo. Someone reported elsewhere that the ride quality on an LA BRT line was like riding in the back of a truck…tough to sell to the choice rider.
I might be useful to have discussion focused on the Barbur corridor which is really next after Milwaukie for high capacity transit. BRT or MAX?
I think another reason to stick with lightrail in Portland may be that we already have the start of a system, with maintenance infrastructure, etc. Introducing BRT means that thru trips could require a transfer….if the Greenline continued out Barbur as BRT, a rider would have to switch from train to bus somewhere downtown. The debate here is really over.
Ross said:
“Portland’s density of transit use is nowhere near NYC. That is one of the reasons there is no subway. Moreover, the size and density of suburban residential development is nowhere near the NYC area. And the concentration of jobs in the central city is nowhere near Manhattan.”
>>>> You just made my case. Portland metro’s layout and density are exactly why we don’t need rail here: we are a bus city. I could see why a city like Seattle could do rail between downtown and the University District, but Portland, no way.
Lenny –
Thanks for the comments. I agree that BRT should be included as a serious study option for the Barbur corridor.
By that time, however, it may be time to also seriously reconsider a subway alignment, at least as a realistic study. It will probably be 2020 before anything gets built along Barbur at the going rate.
A real alternatives analysis should include 1. No Build, 2. Augmented standard service (add a few express buses to the basic service), 3. BRT-lite (big buses, road striping, HOV lanes, signal preemption), 4. Full BRT (significant portions of dedicated ROW, minimum headways), 5. Rapid Streetcar (using streetcar vehicles but with LRT-style station spacing and significant dedicated ROW), 6. surface LRT, 7. subway LRT.
Such a discussion should include a discussion of operations costs and infrastructure/vehicle replacement over the life of the project, so people can get a realistic picture of what each mode really costs.)
A few more notes for Nick:
I have previously advocated that BRT-style buses would be an interesting way to increase capacity of the Transit Mall by adding service to the left lane. (I’ve told you this like six times now.)
I’ve also presented real-world figures that show that since MAX opened in 1987, there has been an overall increase of bus service hours, and that this increase has exceeded population growth. Overall bus service is not being sacrificed as MAX grows.
I take your criticisms seriously, Nick — you are a real transit rider and transit supporter, not a complete anti-transit activist — which is why I spend a lot of time digging for facts and figures and writing out detailed examples to back up what I’m saying about performance, so I don’t appreciate being dismissed as a spinner or a rail nut.
– Bob R.
“I might be useful to have discussion focused on the Barbur corridor which is really next after Milwaukie for high capacity transit. BRT or MAX?”
>>>> Lenny, you want to start discussing Barbur now? From what I can tell, even the Milwaukie LRT is uncertain–I’ve heard that there are financing and operating tensions between this “project” and the eastside streetcar; i.e., Trimet only has enough funds to operate either one or the other.
That’s why I have to laugh when I see railfans proposing streetcar extensions all over the place.
Nick –
Portland has had a highly successful light rail system for over 20 years. I didn’t make your case for anything. You expect the same level of service in lightly developed Tualatin that you had in the heavily developed suburbs of New York. It isn’t going to happen whether with buses, light rail or commuter rail. There just aren’t enough of you living there who all want to go the same place at the same time.
Lenny said:
“The debate here is really over.”
>>>> The debate hasn’t even really started: wait until 2009, when if I was reading is correct, EVERYTHING (bus and LRT) on the new transit mall will be limited to a top speed of 15 mph for safety reasons. That may raise a real stink, as Trimet was advised against by its consultants against trying to do this project of weaving the tracks in and out. But no, the rail cabal in Trimet was determined to get those tracks in there.
Now, how should I feel as a bus rider about this?
Nick says: “You just made my case. Portland metro’s layout and density are exactly why we don’t need rail here: we are a bus city. I could see why a city like Seattle could do rail between downtown and the University District, but Portland, no way.”
Seattle is kicking themselves for not building light rail 10-20 years ago and is now building what they should have all those years ago at many more times the cost. Portland will be at the size Seattle is now in 10-20 years. Our past, current and future investments in LRT are very prudent.
Regarding density and appropriateness of transit mode:
Population:
* City of Seattle (2006): 578,700
* City of Portland (2005): 556,000 (4% less)
Population Densities:
* City of Seattle (2006): 6,901/sq.mi.
* City of Portland (2005): 3,939/sq.mi. (41% less)
Transit Service Vehicle Revenue Hours:
* King County Metro Transit: 3,664,144 (2004)
* TriMet: 1,653,180 (2006) (55% less)
Transit Ridership (Weekday Boardings):
* King County Metro Transit: 339,307 (2004)
* TriMet: 307,200 (2006) (9.5% less)
Agency operating expenditures:
* King County Metro Transit: 405,312,470 (2004)
* TriMet: 271,135,288 (2006) (33% less)
This means that TriMet is serving up nearly as many daily rides as Seattle, even though we are significantly lower density than Seattle, but with 55% less vehicle hours due to much of the capacity being served by light rail, and with 33% lower operations costs. No wonder Seattle is building a light rail system.
– Bob R.
I expect Seattle’s light rail to be the nation’s worst performer indefinitely. So too, their new streetcar line has less potential than the original Portland Streetcar line. Seattle’s mama is so fat, when she walks, her behind looks like two pigs in a gunny sack fighting over a tic tac.
“Seattle is kicking themselves for not building light rail 10-20 years ago and is now building what they should have all those years ago ”
It is true that traffic jams in Seattle are frightful. But argument and debate over the route of the lght rail system has been very furious and time consuming, much more so than the debate on this forum. Seattle concentrates far less on planning–and has a very brisk economy with lots of jobs and higher property values. It’s like comparing apples and oranges.
Hopefully, people in Seattle will be able to observe both failures and successes in commuter rail in other cities and come up with a superior plan. When the Gresham MAX was first considered we were in a “use-it-or-lose-it” situation with federal money, and the estimated costs seemed to be very reasonable. We should be looking for the best way to provide service (like Nick says) and open to innovative ideas that will both attract a greater ridership and hold the line on costs. I’ve seen some examples of very comfortable express bus services for long distance commutes—and these do have the great advantage of not being limited to a fixed route.
I think the geographcal layout of Seattle does lend itself more to rail lines–it stretches north and south along the old Hwy 99 and new I-5, so substituting commuter rail proximate to these routes might make a lot of sense. Portland does have a different geography. But luckily we do have some fine existing rail connections between communities. It seems like somebody should be able to come up with a vehicle that can use those–and not be a behemoth diesel-electric locomotive pulling outstandingly heavy cars that were designed for a bygone era.
I’ve seen some examples of very comfortable express bus services for long distance commutes—and these do have the great advantage of not being limited to a fixed route.
And the great disadvantage for anyone relying on them. Its interesting how people who complain most vociferously about the loss of their express bus to downtown Portland seem to think the ease with which those buses were shifted to other routes is an advantage.
You expect the same level of service in lightly developed Tualatin that you had in the heavily developed suburbs of New York. It isn’t going to happen whether with buses, light rail or commuter rail. There just aren’t enough of you living there who all want to go the same place at the same time.
If that’s the case, then light rail should have never been an option for Hillsboro, Beaverton or Gresham; any discussion of light rail to Forest Grove should immediately cease; and we should ONLY consider busses.
I am not anti-light rail; however busses have certain clear benefits – especially in areas with lower population density (such as Tualatin, Tigard, and the other outer suburbs). BRT has the ability to aggregate service on a corridor to an outlying point – and continue same seat service to further points. MAX requires a transfer from a local bus to MAX, doesn’t offer express service (maybe compared to a bus it’s slightly express; but a MAX stop is still much longer than a bus stop in terms of dwell time), and often requires another connecting bus at the end of the journey.
I see a logical progression as we move towards developing more transit service – first to build up bus service; when demand warrants to move to higher density service (light rail). And Portland has been reasonably successful at doing that; however Portland has shunned bus service at the same time. MAX is convenient for those who park-and-ride, which is almost striking a knife at the basis of growing transit – because it makes transit itself auto-dependent; providing only a means for motorists to aggregate together to move at once to a central location.
In itself, not a bad concept; but transit should be about moving masses, not to pander to one group or another. Ross, I agree – focusing on express routes is a bad idea for this very same reason; however taking longer routes (like the #12) and breaking it up into several routes, so that Sherwood/Tualatin/King City residents don’t have to suffer through the rest of the route as a local, would improve the transit experience. So one bus would start in Sherwood, run to Walnut Street as a local – then run express. Another bus would run from King City to Barbur Blvd. TC local, then run express. And another would run from Barbur Blvd. TC to downtown Portland strictly as a local.
Then again, I’m reinventing the 95 route, and adding a second route which would be a Tigard Express. And we all know how TriMet feels about my philosophy (it killed the 95, and “added” more express service on the 94, which stops only at park-and-ride lots, and Walnut Street (I’m not sure why it stops there) and Greenburg Road (to connect to the 76/78; I’m not sure why it stops there since there aren’t many “high value customers” on that route.)
“And the great disadvantage for anyone relying on them”
Do you mean that an express bus going from downtown Wilsonville, or Newberg, or Estacada, to Portland is going to change its pickup points? That seems like minor problem–if the route is twenty miles or more.
Do you mean that an express bus going from downtown Wilsonville, or Newberg, or Estacada, to Portland is going to change its pickup points? That seems like minor problem–if the route is twenty miles or more.
No. I mean that the express bus from Hillsboro to downtown can be eliminated and the bus used for local or express service somewhere else. Do you run an express bus from Wilsonville when you have a commuter line that will deliver those folks to MAX at the Beaverton Transit Center? I don’t think so. And if that express bus also stopped at the Barbour Transit Center on its way downtown, people who used that transfer point are SOL.
I think certainty for transit users is at least as great an advantage as flexibility for the transit provider. What I find surprising is many of the people who think flexibility is such a great advantage, complain quite loudly when it is exercised.
Portland has shunned bus service at the same time.
I don’t see that. Quite the contrary, bus service has improved right along with MAX.
Erik said:
“BRT has the ability to aggregate service on a corridor to an outlying point – and continue same seat service to further points. MAX requires a transfer from a local bus to MAX, doesn’t offer express service (maybe compared to a bus it’s slightly express; but a MAX stop is still much longer than a bus stop in terms of dwell time), and often requires another connecting bus at the end of the journey.”
>>>> This is the biggest reason I favored BRT for Portland: these transfers are a big turnoff to a lot of potential riders. And park and ride is convenient only for those who live about a five minute drive away. and some MAX dwell times seem to be rather lengthy.
Also, all these park and ride lots take property away from alternative uses, and the potential loss of property tax revenue. Look a that big park and ride at E 122nd & Burnside–something else could have been built there and be paying taxes.
Of course, with well designed BRT, park and rides are not really that necessary.
Bob, I’d also like to thank you for providing everyone with a clear financial overview of LRT vs. BRT.
IMO, BRT doesn’t seem to surpass LRT in terms of value *or* service. However, I’d like to see TriMet keep BRT as an option for future projects.
Regarding the Barbur Corridor:
I’d like to see TriMet working on solutions for this corridor in the very near future.
This may seem crazy, but hear me out!
One option is to tunnel LRT thru the Hills from PSU to either Burlingame (Terwilliger/near to Fred Meyer) OR Multnomah Village (Capital), and continuing as a surface line along Barbur, and terminating in Tigard, ideally near the WashCo Commuter Rail stop, OR at Kruse Way.
This option provides connections between some major nodes in SW and the SW suburbs, including a few Town Centers. It increases access to close-in SW Portland, while avoiding construction in the already-tangled I5/Barbur/Macadam/Terwilliger Corridor.
In addition, this line could be used to promote density in the corridor where its possible, including along Barbur from Terwilleger to Tigard… Yet avoids Barbur directly in areas without potential for more density, like the east-facing hillside between downtown and the Hwy 10 intersection.
I’d be interested to hear others’ thoughts on the Barbur line as well. Its a heavily traveled corridor with a lot of density-potential.
Nate –
I agree that a tunnel option for portions of Barbur is worth considering (its sort of what I meant by LRT subway in one of my comments, above), especially if by that time there is increased political support for a future downtown subway.
A well designed Barbur alignment with rapid service may be worth the cost because it would offer far more speedy connections with service to suburban areas such as Tualatin, Tigard, etc.
– Bob R.
The tunnel idea has promise to get LRT out on Barbur Blvd. and to Tigard.
“I’d be interested to hear others’ thoughts on the Barbur line as well. Its a heavily traveled corridor with a lot of density-potential. ”
My opinion is that LRT, at the current cost estimates, is not worth it. If those vehicles were filled for the whole day it would be, but they are usually only filled during peak commute times–about twenty percent of the schedule. However, I do agree that the Barbur corridor has excellent infill potential and since it connnects to Naito Parkway it could be the first link in a Streetcar line going up NW Front Ave and on to Vancouver. This line would (nearly) intersect the present Central city line in two places–SW Harrison and NW Northrup & 10th Ave, as well as the Lloyd District route, if that is built…. So one could board a Streetcar in Tigard and go all the way to NW Portland or over to the Lloyd District and Central Eastside.
I think there is a question of grade on the Barbur BV route–it does get pretty steep, from SW Arthur all the way to Capitol Hwy.
I agree with many people who would like to see a successful industry of building streetcars in Oregon. However, I seriously question whether the federal government can or should continue supporting commuter rail to the extent that it has. The US simply is no longer the sole economic superpower in the world and investment money could just as easily flow to some other region if our currency becomes unstable. Excessive spending for “pork” projects, and higher federal deficits, is a prime factor. And it doesn’t really matter who started it–we have the problem now and have to rein in out of control federal spending. At the same time I agree that we shouldn’t compromise the economic viability of this State.
Some people have quite a long list of projects that they would like to see built here. Are all of these necessary or is there a simpler way to accomplish a smoothly functioning transportation matrix? Until someone can show me that the total investment in LRT –except in the most heavily used routes–pencils out, I agree with the latter view.
A partially tunneled barbur line could also potentially be even faster than driving (if designed properly); this could REALLY help boost ridership downtown.
And a LOT of people go downtown in that corridor, or OHSU. Perhaps an OHSU stop with a high-speed elevator like at the zoo?
I seriously want to see someone with a valid response to getting MAX from the Barbur Blvd. TC to Tigard TC; without causing a negative impact on Highway 99W.
Both ODOT and the City of Tigard agree that the stretch of highway needs to be widened, and there is no alternative to it; and that some 50% of the traffic is through traffic; no form of public transportation will remove it.
Further, I want to see how transit will improve; given that MAX will likely replicate the Line 94 stops rather than Line 12 – leaving the riders inbetween the express stops out in the cold (or forced to drive to the nearest park-and-ride, resulting in an increase in vehicle traffic on Barbur). Given that the park-and-rides are already over capacity today, I can’t see such as a positive towards transit.
I’ve said before – the best solution is not to replace the Line 12 with MAX; but to run MAX on the old Oregon Electric alignment – which connects MORE “regional centers” than Barbur Blvd. does (including Burlingame, Multnomah Village, Garden Home, Washington Square, Tigard (without touching Highway 99W at grade), Durham and Tualatin), provides FEWER adverse effects on the community (except maybe along Olseon Road), and doesn’t even invoke the whole tunnelling debate (since the grade was built for a railroad 80 years ago). Thus it would be cheaper to build. Further, it would not replace any bus route; but would provide connections for the various bus routes in the area (1, 12, 38, 39, 43, 44, 45, 76, 78) leaving those busses to provide more local service.
Given the geography of the area, TriMet could then move to convert some of these routes towards smaller busses (like C-Tran’s 28′ World Trans busses) which would be easier to navigate on the smaller streets (and the busses are low floor as well). Fewer busses would then enter downtown on the transit mall (can’t say that about Barbur Blvd. MAX since the 12-Sandy would still operate, so it’d only eliminate the line 1-Vermont from entering downtown).
The ONLY drawback is that it’d require the near elimination of commuter rail; although that’s not necessarily true as well; a new line could be built in Tualatin to shift commuter rail onto the old Southern Pacific route west-east through Tualatin, underneath I-5 to Cook (where Tualatin and Lake Oswego come together) and back under I-5 again towards Tigard – and to Tigard TC. This would benefit Tualatin by eliminating that railroad crossing where Tualatin-Sherwood and Boones Ferry Roads intersect, and shift all railroad traffic (freight and commuter) to the line well north to the core business area. Not to mention that doing so would create two potential expansions to commuter rail – to Sherwood and to Lake Oswego – creating a cross-town commuter rail that links Sherwood with MAX and Commuter Rail in Tualatin, Streetcar in Lake Oswego, and potentially even further to another MAX route in Milwaukie as well as the myriad of busses in Milwaukie.
But TriMet won’t go for it, because I’m proposing a ZERO reduction in bus service at the same time. And TriMet is fixated on Barbur Blvd. Transit Center for some unknown reason, like it’s a spiritual healing ground (I guess if you’re into all that carbon monoxide stuff from I-5…)
Trimet’s most recent design for Barbur MAX does not have the train running in the current ROW – MAX would run between I-5 and Barbur. I also learned that based on ridership potential alone, this should have been the first line built. It is interesting to read the wild suggestions here and compare them with reality. Of course Trimet has studied this possible corridor. LRT is never worth the money from a straight economic POV. I’d make sure to demand that Trimet runs the 12 in 5-min headways before any discussion of ‘lack of capacity/service’ takes place.
BOB R: “Regarding density and appropriateness of transit mode:
Population:
* City of Seattle (2006): 578,700
* City of Portland (2005): 556,000 (4% less)
Population Densities:
* City of Seattle (2006): 6,901/sq.mi.
* City of Portland (2005): 3,939/sq.mi. (41% less)
Transit Service Vehicle Revenue Hours:
* King County Metro Transit: 3,664,144 (2004)
* TriMet: 1,653,180 (2006) (55% less)
Transit Ridership (Weekday Boardings):
* King County Metro Transit: 339,307 (2004)
* TriMet: 307,200 (2006) (9.5% less)
Agency operating expenditures:
* King County Metro Transit: 405,312,470 (2004)
* TriMet: 271,135,288 (2006) (33% less)”
bob, can you please revise your figures to only compare metro areas? i dont find those figures useful as you mix and match city figures and metro figures. example you compare the density of the cities of portland and seattle then compare the revenues for the metro transit agencies.
you might not be aware of this but the metro area for seattle has a much higher population and is more spread out then metro portland.
i have trouble seeing how your figures are useful, if anything they are highly misleading.
“Wild suggestions here” is right. A lot of you guys are really dreaming. Given the way things are going around here in Portland, only the central eastside streetcar has a real chance of flying anytime soon, IMO. MAX to Milwaukie? Forget it anytime soon, as it would involve a new bridge being built over the Wilamette.
This is just a statement of the present reality based on financial considerations. in other words, the money ain’t there.
George said:
“I have trouble seeing how your figures are useful, if anything they are highly misleading.”
>>>> Sorry, Bob, but I have to agree with him. This is why I am not impressed when you try and play the numbers game by proferring voluminious statistics. I mean, if we want to play this game, let’s for instance, compare frequent serrvice MAX costs with frequent service bus lines (like #14, #82) costs, and not all of the bus lines. For instance, MAX is operating lines like #47 to just to force-feed the MAX line, and is pissing $81+ down the drain every revenue hour to run this thing–shouldn’t this be charged to MAX? (besides misallocating bus resources.) And Trimet runs many other “marginal” bus lines, also.
When I was talking about LRT in Seattle as opposed to Portland, I was thinking of specific CORRIDORS that might be suitable for rail. However, Portland in general does not really have the spatial characteristics for rail, like SF, for example.
George –
I offered up the numbers are a starting point to counter Nick’s assertion that Portland is too small / too low density to support Rail but that Seattle is appropriate.
Those were the numbers I could dig up on short notice. I am not a professional transit planner and I don’t have every reference book or the data for every agency just sitting around (although that might be nice.)
I think that the numbers I posted serve to reinforce my point — that light rail is an appropriate mode for some corridors in Portland, and that it is working comparatively well.
If you’ve got the numbers for all the other agencies and modes for the entire Puget Sound region, please do post them!
– Bob R.
Nick –
I’ve already told you – I go and do research when you make a claim. I find what numbers I can and offer them up. You’ve done no such thing.
I’ve also shown you how BRT is more expensive to operate than light rail + buses to serve a high capacity corridor – a simple mathematical reality.
You seem to completely ignore that I did say that BRT should be studied for future corridors. I believe the numbers won’t work out well for BRT and I’ve stated why, but I do think that each proposal should be realistically studied.
You don’t like the numbers I posted? Fine. Post yours. Thanks.
– Bob R.
A further challenge to Nick –
Using the current Red/Blue line corridor as an example, suppose it were paved and that there were no technical hurdles to running buses in the tunnel at full speed, etc., what kind of BRT service would you offer and how would it compare to today’s MAX service? Please provide details: # of buses per hour, endpoints, capacity, and operator hours, compared to today’s service.
– Bob R.
I think that some major points may be getting lost in this discussion:
Streetcar cannot compare to LRT in terms of ridership. I’m all for using a variety of modes, and perhaps expanding the streetcar on longer routes. However, Barbur Blvd requires high capacity transit.
A tunnel on a Barbur alignment would provide service to inner-SW Portland, whereas a full-surface alignment would not. Additionally, a tunnel would cut perhaps 10 minutes of travel time when compared to a 100 percent surface alignment.
The Oregon Electric ROW would be a great streetcar alignment, however, I fail to see how it could provide a fast travel time to the city or serve a high ridership area.
The addition of a MAX LRT alignment along Barbur does not neccesarily mean worse service for people just traveling along Hwy99 from Tigard to Burlingame.
The Seattle Metro Area is twice as big as Portland. However, Bobs comparison exposes Portlands high metro ridership, which is comparable to Seattle Metros ridership. I think his numbers only reinforce the idea that Portland provides better service for more people with less money, despite a much smaller population.
I’m pretty sure the voters will get to decide the fate of the Milwaukie MAX Line, as it will take a property tax for local match with the cost of the bridge. Then we will know what people want.
BTW, Metro did a pretty thorough study of all the high capacity options in the McLaughlin corridor after the failure of South/North at the ballot box (by 2k votes). Initially it did not even include MAX; it was put back in by popular demand.
Study should be at the Metro web site in the Library.
You know, Nick does make a great point about the Barbur corridor: The old Oregon Electric Railway tracks really should be studied as a way to provide service. Using commuter rail technology (DMUs to begin with, maybe something electric later), service could be provided in this corridor at relatively high levels without the massive expenditures of digging a new tunnel or revisiting the alignment of Barbur Blvd. for its entire length. The only downside, is where would commuter rail trains enter downtown?
Or, ala the Westside Corridor, the old Oregon Electric alignment could be used to provide light rail service, which could connect to LRT on the Transit Mall… wait, this is almost exactly what Tri-Met is proposing! :-)
Bob R. said:
“You don’t like the numbers I posted? Fine. Post yours. Thanks.”
>>>> This had caught my eye:
http://portlandtransport.com/archives/2007/01/a_number_for_ji.html
Mr. K. (bias noted) swears he’s not lying. the #33 bus came in below MAX in cost per pass. mile,
and I would assume that #6, #14, #82, etc. would also show up well. I went to Trimet’s site to see if I could find the bus line cost breakdowns for myself, or does Trimet not release this kind of info. or make it easy to find. Stop comparing MAX with the whole bus system; MAX is a frequent service operation, and this type of comparison just skews the statistics.
Who knows where to find the cost per pass. mile broken down by lines? Thanks, Nick
Frequent Service lines are not “high capacity transit” a la LRT, BRT, etc.
Cost per ride is low on a number of FS lines, but only one, 72 Killingsworth, carries more than 10K rides per day. MAX Blue Line carries over 60K rider per day…i.e. its high capacity.
The Barbur 12 now carries 6K rides per day…half of the Yellow Line…how do we get it to 20K at a price we can afford? Not with more buses running in traffic, but with a dedicated ROW, with less frequent stops, more reliable schedules, more comfortable vehicles and faster overall service.
So is it BRT or LRT? Doesn’t sound like Streetcar to me (Ron), doesn’t sound like commuter rail either (Garlynn); sounds
more like MAX; but, Nick, make the BRT case. I’ll listen, but I’m skeptical.
PS I think there was a look at the Multnomah Blvd alignment as part of Westside in the early 90’s.
Nick –
From the JK comment you reference, he says:
If you click through to his site you can find that he is referring to the #33 bus line. (Its not obvious from his comments in the thread.)
If his numbers are correct, all this is saying is that the absolutely least costly bus service offered by TriMet (which is NOT “BRT” — as you note it is a frequent service local line) has a cost per passenger-mile lower than all MAX service by about 22%.
Of course, MAX serves a longer distance commuter corridor than the #33, meaning that passengers will ride it further per boarding than the #33, so one would expect the #33’s cost per passenger mile to be low. (To contrast, express buses generally have the highest cost per passenger mile.)
It would be very helpful to know more about the #33 at this point, such as the average trip length, perhaps if JK has more data about it he’d be willing to share? That would allow for more direct comparisons with MAX.
Here’s what we know about MAX and bus service in general:
In FY2006 (according to TriMet), MAX carried 32,606,400 boarding rides while delivering 169,553,280 passenger miles. This would indicate an average trip length of 5.2 miles.
For buses, all routes carried 63,129,600 boarding rides while delivering 236,736,000 passenger miles. This would indicate an average trip length of 3.75 miles.
The only detailed #’s I have for the # 33 are boarding counts for FY2005 (5,323 boardings for the Clackamas County to Downtown route portion — internally, TriMet counts the Fremont route portion separately. I do not know if that portion is also included in JK’s figures.)
Without knowing the total passenger miles delivered, I cannot calculate the average trip length, and without the average trip length we can’t fully compare the cost-per-passenger-mile to MAX. (If the #33 is close to the system bus average of 3.75, then its cost per boarding ride is higher than MAX, but if the #33 is closer to 5.2, its cost will be the same or lower.)
Interestingly, one of the reasons the #33 is so well patronized is because a number of lines are forced to transfer to/from the #33 at Milwaukie TC. This is a practice you have frequently decried regarding MAX. For example, the #34 used to go all the way downtown, but for years now has been a forced transfer at Milwaukie TC. The same goes (depending on your direction of travel) for the #29, #70, #75, and #152.
If MAX is extended to Milwaukie, I wonder how long it will be before people complain that those lines are “forced” transfers that are “artificially” increasing MAX ridership, when in fact the practice of Transit Center-based transfers has been implemented for decades.
(I fully concede that if MAX goes to Milwaukie TC, there is a high likelihood of Oregon City #33 riders being forced to transfer in Milwaukie, as well as potential endangerment of the #99 express.)
– Bob R.
A tunnel on a Barbur alignment would provide service to inner-SW Portland, whereas a full-surface alignment would not. Additionally, a tunnel would cut perhaps 10 minutes of travel time when compared to a 100 percent surface alignment.
The Oregon Electric ROW would be a great streetcar alignment, however, I fail to see how it could provide a fast travel time to the city or serve a high ridership area.
The addition of a MAX LRT alignment along Barbur does not neccesarily mean worse service for people just traveling along Hwy99 from Tigard to Burlingame.
A tunnel would drastically increase the costs with little to no benefit. It’s simply unnecessary.
I think one may be rise to study the Oregon Electric route – and I’m talking the historical route from the original North Bank Station (which is now townhomes) to Eugene, via Garden Home junction. This ain’t no streetcar line, it was built to mainline standards with a top speed of 55 MPH. The “Oregon Electric” that remains today is missing the link to Portland which was abandoned in the 1930s; and the OE segment west from Beaverton to Hillsboro is now Westside MAX.
Burlingame, Multnomah Village, Garden Home, Washington Square, downtown Tigard, and Tualatin – are all designated regional centers by Metro, and all residential/commercial hubs. If they don’t have “high ridership”, then I guess the ONLY area in the Portland metro area that is “high ridership” is downtown; which would demote every form of transit except the Portland Streetcar.
MAX to Tigard (via Barbur Blvd.) would do two things:
1. Reduce the number of stops significantly, causing a direct loss of service to most stops currently served by the #12 Barbur Blvd. bus. However it is unlikely TriMet would continue the #12B, so MAX would be relegated to essentially acting as a parking lot shuttle for downtown commuters.
2. It would interfere with the I-5/Oregon 99W interchange, which serves over 50,000 cars immediately south of the interchange on 99W. There is no alternate route for motorists, nor an alternate right-of-way for MAX.
The best solution is to send MAX northwesterly from Tigard to Washington Square, then northeasterly to Garden Home, then east to Multnomah Village – at which point MAX would then use Barbur Blvd. to Burlingame and downtown – crossing over the existing 5th/6th Avenue bridges to access the transit mall; just like Westside MAX was extended west across the existing Morrison/Yamhill overpasses over I-405 without a new bridge. This route would use a right-of-way that was designed for high speed, long distance interurban trains (that traveled to Eugene), without the need for tunnels, new fills, overpasses, etc.
This route would maintain transit times, provide little interference with other forms of transportation, serve more regional centers (at the risk of not serving two park-and-ride lots, which can be easily replaced), and be cheaper to build.
Erik,
I’ll admit that I’m wading into the unknown regarding the Oregon Electric ROW.
Here’s what I do know: I’m very familiar with the inner SW neighborhoods. I know that at least some portions of the old ROW still exist. I know the line does not continue past Hillsdale.
Would you be able to provide a map or more information regarding the ROW? I’d be interested in learning more.
My initial reaction to a high capacity LRT alignment along that route is that the neighborhoods will *never* let it happen. I could be wrong.
What is the route of the old ROW…ie along, or near, which streets?
Nate,
You’re referring to the old Southern Pacific/Red Electric right-of-way (doesn’t extend beyond Hillsdale). There are a number of books (“The Northwest’s Own Railroad, Volume II”) that have detailed descriptions of the OE.
In short:
North Bank Depot south on 10th Avenue to area south of City Hall, then east to Front Avenue area, then south along what is now Interstate 5 to Multnomah Boulevard, west to Garden Home (note there is a street “Railroad Street” behind the shopping center), where the OE had a junction with one line to Beaverton (there is the “Oregon Electric Right-of-Way Park which is part of the Fanno Creek Greenway) and the mainline southwesterly to Greton (where near the intersection of Greenburg Road and North Dakota/Tiedeman in Tigard). At Greton, the OE still exists as a freight railroad south to Eugene, and from Tigard to Wilsonville will be the route for the commuter rail line.
If you use Google Earth, you can see that the right-of-way is largely still visible; however largely in back yards. So from Garden Home to Greton, a new alignment would need to be constructed to serve Washington Square, and then along Oleson Road – at which point it would rejoin the original alignment on Multnomah Blvd.
Further, a new MAX line using this route would use Barbur Blvd. from Multnomah downtown (since the original OE route is now I-5.) In fact, if you are entering the Terwilliger Curves southbound you will see a massive concrete wall on the right side of the freeway – that retaining wall was actually built for the OE railroad, and pre-dates I-5 by some 30-40 years!!
I think if done right, the neighborhoods will have little to no opposition – since the LRT route will use largely existing roads, provide a lot of transit connections, and would open up the Multnomah Village shopping area without adding parking. It’d also provide a valuable outlet for traffic in/out of Washington Square without parking or new roadways. The only drawback is finding a route between Garden Home and Washington Square which is a few miles.
Seriously, you guys really need a big reality check.
Nothing is going to be built, be it BRT or LRT, in SW for a long, long time (like many multiples of decades). I even doubt whether Milwaukie MAX is going to be built, anywhere near 2014 as projected, as the idea of building a new bridge over the Wilamette poses a big obstacle–just look at the nonsense going on about the new Interstate Bridge.
Also, I understand that Trimet only has enough money to operate either the eastside streetcar OR
Milwaukie MAX; please correct me if I am wrong about this last point.
About the only thing that can be done in the meantime is to tweak the bus services (e.g., signal preemption) to help things out a bit.