This has been completely under the radar in the recent discussions of the Burnside/Couch couplet, but one idea Sam Adams shared when he discussed the couplet with the Portland Streetcar, Inc. board of directors was the possibility of having an express option, so that there would be an option of a 15- or 20-minute trip from NW 24th to NE 12th competitive with auto trip times.
I assume this will get a deeper look during the preliminary engineering phase that was just approved.
Obviously this would require passing tracks at some stops and some different service planning. What would be the constraints and impacts of trying to do passing tracks and express service in the central city?
51 responses to “Express Streetcar”
The Express Streetcar should just stay in the mainline and the “Everystop” Streetcar should be sidelined while it passes. I don’t see this much different than some of the plans I’ve seen for express service on the Light Rail lines that currently exist. With proper timing and good discipline (something we Americans sorely lack) we could pull of express with existing light rail trackage and easily build it into Streetcar Service if it was truly a high priority.
I would be very concerned about costs and performance… the notion of “express” transit service of any kind in a central city is difficult to achieve without grade separation.
MAX, for example operates as a limited-stop or express service where it abuts freeway ROW, but becomes essentially a local service downtown. The new transit mall design has stations every 4 or 5 blocks which is better than the 2 block spacing of the current MAX alignment, but still not an express system.
To achieve express service with the streetcar would require siding tracks and switches at every station which is not served by an express train. This not only significantly raises capital costs but drives up maintenance costs. Express services also have a high cost per boarding ride and per passenger mile.
It may come as a surprise to some of our regulars, but my first reaction in this case would be against such a system. Let the streetcar, if it is to be built, keep to conventional operation. If express service is needed along the precise same route, run buses that serve some of the platforms and pass others (no need for special tracks.)
– Bob R.
The success of the subway system in New York is dependent on your ability to get on a local train and then switch to an express one. The sheer amount of local stations would make transit miserable without such an option.
One of the advantages of bus over rail –despite my liking rail very much– is the ease with which you can add express buses to a line without adding a second track (etc) as we have with the #14, with some buses not having their first stop until SE 39th.
Eventually you need express and local lines…but I think we’re pretty far away from an ability to pay for that with rail lines, when we can’t even afford to build a rudimentary rail system beyond building, what, a mile or so a year on average?
Any system where you travel via city streets downtown is inherently un-express.
This is ridiculous. As if adding the streetcar line didn’t increase opposition to the couplet, adding an impossibly impractical express track only moreso strengthens opposition. Drop it.
Furthermore, a rail system should not consider speed its highest priority. Comfort, reliability, and station area development are far more important.
Streetcar lines can act as traffic-calming devises on Grand/MLK, Broadway/Weidler, and yes, even Burnside/Couch, though I’m partial to a transit-only lane westbound on West Burnside. The streetcar line on the Eastside could run westbound on Couch after making a ‘sweet’ turnaround at the proposed Circle at East 14th.
The Eastside should develop, beginning with the Burnside Bridgehead project and spread from there. If Portland is serious about the 2040 Regional Plan, the Eastside is just the beginning of how development should occur in places other than downtown. A streetcar line on Burnside is consistent with the 2040 Regional Plan.
blah blah blah
Frank Dufay said:
“One of the advantages of bus over rail –despite my liking rail very much– is the ease with which you can add express buses to a line without adding a second track (etc) as we have with the #14, with some buses not having their first stop until SE 39th.”
>>>> Now you see why I am not in favor of a Hawthorne Streetcar. I rode the #14 express and heard riders complimenting the service and saying there should be more of it.
Now if Trimet would get rid of basket cases like #23, 27, etc., and assign the bus hours to #14, you could get on the bus in the rush hour.
There is no transportation reason to build a streetcar line on Burnside. It would duplicate the service now provided by the #20 bus route. Money would be better spent on improving the #20’s schedule. It is now one of TriMet’s top performing routes with about 9,000 boardings a day. It would be even better if every bus ran west of 23rd Avenue to Beaverton instead of every other bus. It also needs better Sunday service.
To achieve express service with the streetcar would require siding tracks and switches at every station which is not served by an express train. This not only significantly raises capital costs but drives up maintenance costs. Express services also have a high cost per boarding ride and per passenger mile.
and
There is no transportation reason to build a streetcar line on Burnside. It would duplicate the service now provided by the #20 bus route.
Hmmm…
How about we keep the Streetcar local and make the #20 an express for the portion of Burnside where it overlaps the proposed Streetcar?
The streetcar should be a neighborhood circulator, intersecting with MAX stations. It should not have bridges dedicated to only its use. I’d love to see the streetcar peridocally divert from regular street traffic and be side-by-side with a bicycle freeway. Vanersborg, SE, has great over/under bike/ped paths that go everywhere the streets go.
The streetcars should be a neighborhood circulators only, intersecting with MAX stations. Could we do a city-wide master plan to see if it’s even viable in certain neighborhoods? I think that would be the way to go since the city seems to be on a mission to have streetcar EVERYWHERE. Plan the whole thing before building any piece of it. I’d love to see the streetcar periodically divert from regular street traffic and be side-by-side with a bicycle freeway. Vanersborg, SE, has great over/under bike/ped paths that go everywhere the streets go.
K –
There is a citywide transit study starting up at PDOT which will attempt to identify the best places to enhance bus service, upgrade to streetcar, plan for light rail, etc. As I’ve stated here and elsewhere before, I believe that any streetcar proposal for Burnside should be evaluated and prioritized through that process.
Chris –
Regarding using the #20 as an express if a streetcar is built on Burnside, that might work but it would depend on A) how many people now using the #20 locally would be well-served by the streetcar and B) how many #20 riders would prefer to skip over local stops. If the numbers work out, the two services could complement each other without forcing too many people to transfer.
– Bob R.
It should not have bridges dedicated to only its use.
There are no proposals for a dedicated Streetcar bridge. The current proposals are:
The Loop: Broadway Bridge (shared lane with cars) and Carruthers Crossing (shared with MAX) [backup: return on Hawthorne Bridge, shared line with cars].
Burnside: Shared lane with cars on Burnside Bridge.
I know. I had written that wrong, my browser crashed, so I posted again with my edited version, only to find that the first version did post despite the crash.
How about an “el”…an elevated line would be quick and would keep some of the beloved grit on Burnside. Ah, memories of the Loop.
Seriously, Streetcar dones not even have dedicated ROW; if you want faster service out of Streetcar, give it its own lane for starts.
Sam added Streetcar to the couplet because otherwise it was DOA; now Sten has locked it in. Financially, given the development along Streetcar, the full couplet may not even pencil out witout the added shine of Streetcar and its LID potential.
Who has data on Streetcar and the 77 line in NW; Burnside certainly could offer a similar arrangement with the 20 and make everyone happy.
Why not just have a local streetcar with diamond lanes during peak periods? You could run streetcars and buses on the diamond lanes speeding up the flow of transit traffic.
J Wood –
For the couplet proposal, you could find room on Burnside and Couch to establish a third, eastbound diamond lane and still have some room to widen sidewalks, but you’d have to remove street parking and some of the curb extensions and you’d wind up with longer crossing distances. I suspect that such a proposal wouldn’t fly because it would cut into the pedestrian benefits that the couplet proposal is trying to provide.
Alternately, you could eliminate automobile traffic from one existing lane, but I think that would be a tremendous political and practical non-starter. The current couplet proposal preserves (without significantly expanding or reducing) automobile capacity in a major corridor.
What I think would be the best for any potential streetcar service on Burnside is to create significant layover capacity at either end of the line and use GPS tracking to dispatch streetcars in real-time to ensure even passenger loads and headways.
– Bob R.
I’m all for faster transit, but a few comments:
–Let’s not pretend that the streetcar is a railroad, or a subway for that matter. Even on full-blown railroads, it’s a delicate task to try to coordinate operations for expresses to overtake locals using passing sidings. Caltrain has done it since launching their “Baby Bullet” service a couple of years ago, and I believe Metra in Chicago does it as well, two name two of the few examples out there.
Even in these environments (dedicated right-of-way, fine-tuned schedules) it’s a tricky ordeal, and gets thrown off enough from the few variables in there that inevitably, at some point, throw off schedules (passenger loading, other rail traffic, etc.), which means either delaying an express because a local can’t “get into the hole” fast enough, or holding a local “in the hole” because an express is lagging. In the case of the former, there go your expensively-purchased time savings. In the latter, you’re degrading local service from purposely-slow to god-awfully-slow.
(Note that even those systems with dedicated express tracks (New York, Philadelphia), the same phenomena can occur when dispatchers hold trains for meets, which in busy environments affects other trains on both lines.)
That said, I’ll go out on a limb and say that the prospect of passing-sidings for a system like Streetcar, which like all shared-ROW services has significant more uncertainty in its schedules, is downright impractical.
–Depending on what the headways are, no additional infrastructure may be necessary. If the headways are still 10 minutes or above, I would be willing to bet that “express” service could be handled as it is on many commuter rail systems and, more applicably, the Los Angeles Gold Line (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LACMTA_Gold_Line#Limited_Stop_Service). The idea is simple enough: stick a few “express” runs into the existing local schedule, but with the express train leaving immediately before a local train. I’ll bet you half a Czech koruna (that is, just over 2 cents) that the express streetcar would not catch up with the local initially 10 minutes ahead of it before it got to the end of the line. The limited stop service on the gold line runs at much higher speeds than the streetcar and it only shaves 5 minutes off the 22km line. I doubt the Streetcar would outperform it.
The other issue here is that on the streetcar, a large portion of travel time is actually waiting time. Running express/limited trains means those waiting will be seeing trains pass by them, or worse: stopped at the station without opening the doors, waiting for the light to change green. Riders hate that. So you’d have to install some major signal priority to avoid that, but that would just beg the question: why not devote the money to running shorter headways for “locals”?
These thoughts lead me to agree with Chris that it’s far more practical to run Streetcars as locals and buses as expresses if you really want to do it.
I think, overall, that when it comes to streetcar services, perhaps the best way to provide “express” service is to just have semi-parallel higher-performance modes. Limited-stop streetcars are a rare breed. I can think of a small handful of instances in central Munich where there are multiple tracks, with only certain lines stopping, but this is more to convenience network design where lines split/merge (there’s one stretch that’s actually 4 tracks in the median of the road).
Rather than going to such extremes for “express streetcar”, most cities just have another service. This is why in Munich, if you want to get across the central city fast you take the S-Bahn or U-Bahn. If you want to get to the doorstop of your destination or see the scenery, you take the slower tram.
Bob R. said:
“Regarding using the #20 as an express if a streetcar is built on Burnside, that might work but it would depend on A) how many people now using the #20 locally would be well-served by the streetcar and B) how many #20 riders would prefer to skip over local stops. If the numbers work out, the two services could complement each other without forcing too many people to transfer.”
>>>> Well, I live in NW District, and #20 is one of my bread and butter routes (along with #15). I board and alight at various local stops, and skipping them would be another inconvenience for me. I use this bus a lot to go to Beaverton and the east side, as well as just downtown.
This is another instance of where building a rail operation here in Portland would degrade service for many riders in some ways. Now maybe you can see why I carry on so much about this subject.
Lenny wrote: Seriously, Streetcar dones not even have dedicated ROW; if you want faster service out of Streetcar, give it its own lane for starts.
An excellent point as well.
This is another instance of where building a rail operation here in Portland would degrade service for many riders in some ways. Now maybe you can see why I carry on so much about this subject.
First of all, just because the streetcar is built does not mean that the #20 would become express–it’s just someone’s musings on the blog. Second, this isn’t really a rail-specific issue: the question of express service–whether on rubber tires, rails, or webbed feet–involves those same compromises.
That’s why it’s counterproductive for those advocating bus in place of rail to say, “they could just do that with a bus”–because the real complaint you lodged would still be just as valid with an express bus supplementing a local bus as it would against an express bus supplementing a streetcar. So rail has nothing to do with it.
On this issue, in your position, Nick, I think you would be best-off to advocate that were express service to be offered, it would take the form of a new route rather than the #20 (which, again, was just a hypothetical in the discussion here). Again, this is all independent of the mode.
(And, shy of Lake Oswego, I would be surprised to see bus routes curtailed en masse to connect to streetcar, as is a frequent complaint of the bus-ersatz-rail folks).
Well, I live in NW District, and #20 is one of my bread and butter routes (along with #15). I board and alight at various local stops, and skipping them would be another inconvenience for me. I use this bus a lot to go to Beaverton and the east side, as well as just downtown.
Nick, if a Streetcar provided the local service you’re getting from the #20 now, wouldn’t having express service on the bus just be gravy?
The inconvenience would be for people coming from outside the NW 24th to SE 12th zone on the #20 who would get fewer local access points (without a transfer) into the district. Someone whose trips are just inside the district should have a greater range of choices.
Part of my logic for suggesting using a bus for the express service is looking at cost/benefit.
Clearly the Streetcar is being added to the project because a development benefit is perceived. My sense is that adding lots of capital expense for pull-out tracks would not increase the development potential, and these extra tracks add lots of operational complexity.
On the other hand, using a bus for the express adds little or no capital expense and is operationally more flexible.
I think we’re all forgetting the historical nature of what a Trolley (Streetcar) is versus what used to be called an Interurban, which MAX more closely relates to.
Trolleys were largely replaced by busses; the Streetcar still fulfills this function – frequent stop, high capacity. Not necessary geared for speed – more for serving a need.
Interurbans connected cities and neighborhoods together; they didn’t connect blocks together. Outside of downtown (and outside of Hillsboro), MAX serves this function.
If anything, maybe MAX should be rebuilt in the central core – and put Streetcar service on the line from Lloyd Center to PGE Park. MAX should have a central downtown station (maybe two – one for the PSU area and one closer to Pioneer Courthouse Square or even further north; and likely an eastside station in the Convention Center/Rose Quarter area), with routes that extend west, east and south.
The Yellow Line is a toss-up; it’s not as local as the Streetcar (stops are too far apart) but not an interurban (stops are too close together) – so it could be a part of the Streetcar network but with fewer stops than the downtown area.
That way, MAX would be a true express, and Streetcar would provide the “circulator” service that requires more capacity than busses or where Streetcar is otherwise desired over bus service.
Bob R., what can you tell us about the interface between Streetcar in NW and the 77. They share stops between NW 23 and NW 11th along Northrup and Lovejoy. 77 goes from Montgomery Park to Troutdale…but is not an express at all.
Finally! The streetcar was added because of a perceived benefit to development for ‘both’ sides of the Willamette. Burnside Bridgehead development, Sandy/Burnside intersection, increased economic activity between these two points, development all along Grand/MLK, and on the westside of course. The influence rail has upon development, rail comfort and reliability support a Burnside Streetcar line. Period.
It also seems to me, yes, the #20 could become a semi-express line between East 14th and West 23rd, passing 6 of about 13 stops. Let the streetcar make all stops and the #20 bus make only the most important stops. Adding a streetcar line to serve just this section of the central city would make transit service more frequent, more reliable and serve people who otherwise won’t ride any bus, express or otherwise. The streetcar has an important role to play, Mister Waterfront Park.
Now, will someone ‘actually’ explain why a westbound transit-only lane on Burnside won’t work? I’ll bet some people from the Police and Fire Depts/emergency and delivery services might think it a good outside-the-box idea.
Lenny –
I have not examined the interface with the Streetcar and the #77. I think I can find stop-by-stop boarding counts in the TriMet FY2005 census, but I don’t have similar streetcar figures… Chris, is there some stop-by-stop data available?
Even stop-by-stop comparisons won’t tell us immediately who transfers between lines and who simply deboards at the same platform… some kind of rider survey on both lines would be needed.
I do agree that such an investigation would be useful as a first step to discussing how the #20 and a Burnside Streetcar might complement each other.
– Bob R.
The #20 bus travels between W 24th and E 12th in about 14 minutes. I seriously doubt that an “express streetcar” could beat it.
re Streetcar on MAX tracks…I always assumed that when a subway is built…2030 maybe, both MAX routes thru downtown will be given over to Streetcar service, an excellent fit.
Interstate MAX can join the tunnel north of Rose Quarter and be its in-between self on Interstate and zip thru downtown.
Next time you are in Frankfurt aM you can see how this works…Strassenbahn, U-bahn, S-bahn and InterCity trains, not to mention several bus lines, all meet at the Hauptbahnhoff, etc.
Jim, we’re saying the #20 bus could be the semi-express service, not the streetcar. There’s a specific demand for more frequent and more user-friendly transit between West 23rd and East 14th that can be met with a streetcar. Also, there’s a need to increase travel through town on the #20. Were you a big fan of Bizarro Superman or what? If the #20 can do the segment in 14 minutes, it could do it in 10 minutes bypassing 6 of the 13 or so stops. Hello?
edit: “Also, there’s a need to increase travel ‘speed’ through town on the #20.”
And wouldn’t it be easier for a Semi-express #20 bus to pass a streetcar stopped at a station, HmmmmMmmmm?
Bob R., what can you tell us about the interface between Streetcar in NW and the 77.
In fact there is very little interaction. The Streetcar serves a circulator function while the 77 (at least in NW) primarily serves employment trips, getting folks from the East side (as far as Troutdale) to jobs at Good Sam and Montgomery Park.
We did arrange to have them share stops on Lovejoy and Northrup (12th to 23rd). This means that folks making the short hop from the Pearl the NW on these streets get doubled-up frequency, but otherwise they have little to do with each other.
I don’t think it’s a good analogy for the longer common stretch on Burnside that’s proposed (36 blocks compared to 11).
So, nobody will give more than 1/2 a second thought to the idea of running a transit-only lane westbound on Burnside through the Westside Couplet? 1/2 a second is all it takes for some people to make up their mind? Ehhh, won’t work! Mind made up. No need to give it another thought. Maybe I’ll take the idea to the Fire Department to hear what they think. I’ll word it like this, “What do you think about having a low-trafficked, westbound emergency lane on Burnside, in case of, oh you know, a fire?”
I like the idea of an express streetcars but it seems like a pretty low priority: If you have the labor-hours and the vehicles to put more streetcars in service, you should use that to put more streetcars into the existing local service where they will see far more passengers than running as an express… If you want to speed up the streetcar, things like signal prioritization, and replacing the stop signs with signals, (yes, I think most of them are at stations, but the driver still has to wait for the intersection to clear before he can leave the station,) and figuring out a solution to “problem stations” like 10th and Everett, (which normally has some cars trying to make a right turn in front of the station, but the cars can’t turn immediately on the green light because there are pedestrians in the crosswalk, so the streetcar has to wait for the cars to clear out before it can stop at the station,) and other “little things” that slow the streetcar down would probably be far cheaper and have greater benefit (in terms of “customer-hours saved”,) than the express track.
Wells –
I can assure you I gave more than a half a second of thought to the discussion of a transit-only lane on Burnside… please see my comments, above.
To elaborate on my comments, the technical hurdle to a third transit-only lane is space constraints. The ROW for Burnside and Couch in the central section between Park and 14th is only 60′. (And the overpasses to 15th don’t give much room to play with either.)
The current couplet proposal for these sections calls for:
12′ Sidewalk (and improvement over today’s 8ft on Burnside)
7′ Parking Strip
11′ Travel Lane
11′ Travel Lane
7′ Parking Strip
12′ Sidewalk
Total: 60′
At intersections, the parking strip area would be used for curb extensions and transit boarding platforms and shelters, making the practical sidewalk width up to 18′ in these places (more than double Burnside’s current sidewalk.) The intersection treatment would look like:
19′ Extended Sidewalk + Gutter
11′ Travel Lane
11′ Travel Lane
19′ Extended Sidewalk + Gutter
Total: 60′
This makes for a nice, short approx. 22′ crossing distance instead of today’s 44′ crossings on that stretch of Burnside. These wide sidewalks, extensions, and short crossings are a primary reason why pedestrian and neighborhood groups have supported the couplet. Any plan which would change these configurations might not meet with as broad an approval, and you know how contentious things already are.
I already discussed earlier that I don’t think simply converting one of the existing travel lanes to transit-only would fly politically or practically for Burnside, so I’m only really examining the idea of a 3rd lane.
Here’s what a 3-lane (2 regular cars plus 1 transit-only) Burnside/Couch might look like, eliminating one parking strip and some sidewalk space to do the job.
8′ Sidewalk on non-transit side
7′ Parking Strip
11′ Travel Lane
11′ Travel Lane
11′ Transit/Special Lane
12′ Sidewalk on transit side
Total: 60′
In the above scenario, I left the sidewalks on the non-Transit side of the street at 8′ (like they are today on Burnside). There will still be room for extensions at intersections because of the parking strip, so at crossings these will grow to approx. 15′ including gutter.
You could make up some room by narrowing the transit lane to 10′, but this makes bus operations difficult. (It’s even worse on Hawthorne with 9.5′ lanes.) So, I’ve left all 3 travel lanes at 11′.
By making the sidewalks on the transit side 12′, there is some nominal room for platforms and shelters, but they would be more like the conventional tiny standardized bus shelters we have today, not the slightly larger streetcar shelters and not a lot of room for platform space or wheelchair “parking”, etc, but it could be made to fit.
The real problems with this idea are twofold:
1. On the transit side it would be impossible to have curb extensions at the pedestrian crossings of Burnside or Couch, and the overall crossing width is now 33′.
2. On Couch, this proposal actually narrows sidewalks and extensions significantly from how they exist today.
Given that this proposal equates to narrower sidewalks compared to the couplet proposal, and greater crossing distances and narrower sidewalks on Couch compared to even current conditions, I don’t think it could develop much of a constituency.
So there you have it, my 1/2 second analysis.
– Bob R.
Chris said:
“Nick, if a Streetcar provided the local service you’re getting from the #20 now, wouldn’t having express service on the bus just be gravy?
The inconvenience would be for people coming from outside the NW 24th to SE 12th zone on the #20 who would get fewer local access points (without a transfer) into the district. Someone whose trips are just inside the district should have a greater range of choices.”
>>>> Unfortunately, I often do use the #20 to go east of E 12th Ave. and west of W 24th Ave. this is exactly what I was afraid would happen with the implementation of a streetcar. Like I said, the #20 is a bread and butter route for me, to go many places, not just within downtown.
The Waterfront Line here, currently suspended, had streetcars waiting in sidings, because it was only one track. With the Waterfront portion being in old railway right of way, the sidings it waited in were not in general traffic. On Main Street, it was the curb lane(which was a No Parking Zone). That siding is marked for SFD vehicles only right now.(SFD HQ and SFD Station No.1 are nearby).
I meant by “The Waterfront Line here” is the George Benson Waterfront Streetcar Line. The bus being operated until the new Maintenance Facility is built is the #99, co-incidentally, the same route number the timetables gave the streetcar.
The Express Streetcar idea reminded me about something that a group down in New Orleans was talking about for rebuilding the city. It is the Grand Boulevard, but then again, New Orleans style streetcars would not work up here. They are Quasi-Light Rail, have been that way for a long time. The old system that until the dawn of the 21st Century was down to just 1 line, had only a single line operating in mixed traffic, the others were in the Neutral Grounds. The Grand Boulevard idea had three tracks in the middle of the street. Just passing this along.
http://www.urbanconservancy.info/letters/grand-boulevards-strategy-transportation-postkatrina
How about electric trolley buses on Burnside and most of the major east side streets (Belmont, Hawthorne, Broadway, Sandy, Division)?
Jon –
Personally, I think electric trolley buses are great and can provide good service especially in densely populated hilly areas.
However, ETBs may face objection from neighborhoods. Although they are very quiet and have zero direct emissions, and that is a great advantage, they require dual overhead wires which leads to some pretty unsightly wire-work at intersections, especially if the ROW is also shared with a streetcar. Single streetcar/MAX wires are generally inoffensive visually. Take a look at this photo from Toronto to get an idea of a worst-case scenario.
Me personally, I don’t have an objection to ETBs based on the wiring… I’m just trying to anticipate what might happen if this were presented to various stakeholder groups.
Now, in the specific case of Hawthorne Blvd, where I’ve been advocating for streetcar service, I do not believe trolleybuses would be a significant improvement. Many of the service problems on Hawthorne today stem from very narrow lanes and conflicts over ROW, and changing to trolleybus would not eliminate any of those problems.
– Bob R.
Reducing 8 lanes of traffic down to four with a fixed rail transit taking up a lane sounds like trouble.
Don’t we have something else to spend 80M + on?
Check out the #7 train in NYC (the purple line).
Link:
http://mta.info/nyct/maps/submap.htm
Bob R: I thought the “Parking Strip” was that area of grass between the curb and the sidewalk. (An old term, meaning a strip of “parking”, that is, grass and trees, like a park) Many people still use it that way, although transportation folks in Portland now call that the “planting strip”.
I think what you mean is the “parking lane”, the area of the roadway, next to the curb, where vehicles are parked.
Doug K
Thanks Bob, for the respectable effort. I’ll just follow-up a bit:
On Couch Street, I intended no change to the current proposal. Both directions of transit would remain on Burnside, westbound in a transit-only lane. Eastbound transit sharing the traffic lane. This allows regular Couch traffic to flow without back-ups behind stopped buses and streetcars. Thus, Couch could maintain a better flow of traffic, fewer motorists trying to pass when they shouldn’t or trying to catch up after losing time in the back-up. See?
On Burnside’s westbound transit-only lane, curb extensions at intersections would be lost, true. On the other hand, it’s a transit-only lane. Whenever a bus or streetcar is absent from the lane, pedestrians may use the entire lane as a sort of curb extension. The size of the streetcar platform and shelter however, is something I hadn’t figured on. I’d consider 10′ sidewalks on both sides. The south side could still have curb extensions with enough room for regular streetcar station platforms.
There might have to be an narrow width median (18″) between eastbound and westbound lanes.
So, Bob, will you give it another 1/2 second of thought about it?
Hi Anthony –
Where on Burnside today are there 8 lanes of traffic which will be reduced to 4 in the couplet proposal?
The most lanes I can count anywhere on Burnside are 7 which includes a right-turn-only lane (westbound) and a merge lane (eastbound)… west from there they reduce to 6 for one or two blocks and then reduce to 5 then 4.
The couplet proposal (see this document for diagrams of lower west Burnside) preserves six through lanes on the bridge (dropping the right-turn-only because now all westbound lanes can turn right). In the next block west, there are 4 eastbound lanes (one turn lane) and 2 westbound lanes, for a total of 6. In the next couplet block there are 5 lanes expanding from 4, and then 4 blocks thereafter — It’s all very similar to the capacity we have today, but divided into a couplet so that pedestrians don’t have to cross up to 7 lanes all at once.
As for fixed rail transit “taking up” a lane, generally automobiles and streetcars share a lane, such as on 10th/11th today. This is no different than buses operating in a lane and sharing with cars, except that, in general, streetcars board and accelerate faster than buses, causing fewer delays than the equivalent level of service provided by bus.
– Bob R.
Doug K –
Thanks for the clarification… I’ll try to use “parking lane” from now on, or try and look up what the official term is before I do it again. :-)
– Bob R.
Wells –
I see what you are saying about putting all transit on Burnside and from a technical perspective I think it could work (although it is a bit odd to have a dedicated transit line in one direction and not the other, but not unprecedented).
The real answer probably comes back to politics again… I’m sure part of the reason for linkage of a streetcar plan to the couplet proposal is to alleviate the concerns of some residents and businesses fronting Couch… to modify the plan at this stage to keep all transit on Burnside and have only autos on Couch may be a deal killer.
– Bob R.
Can we run electric trolley busses on the streetcar route to increase route frequency, utilizing the existing overhead lines? One of the main reasons I rarely take the streetcar is because I can usually walk to my destination (I only use the streetcar between PSU and Morrison/Yamhill) in the amount of time I would spend waiting.
Could we use battery-based 5-10 mile ETB routes which stop at battery rapid-recharge facilities located throughout the city, also eliminating the need for overhead wires?
Can we run electric trolley busses on the streetcar route to increase route frequency, utilizing the existing overhead lines?
No, trolley buses require two wires (power and ground). We have only power. The Streetcars ground through the rails.
Single streetcar/MAX wires are generally inoffensive visually. Take a look at this photo from Toronto to get an idea of a worst-case scenario.
That photo is a little misleading; given the massive wirework that has nothing to do with the Streetcar/Trolleybus operation on the left.
Since there are no overhead utility lines in downtown Portland we wouldn’t see the majority of the wires as photographed. However, as seen in Seattle – trolleybus intersections do pose a web of wires above the intersection for which the assertion is correct – some people will object.
I don’t think the objection would be any worse than MAX on Burnside (wait, they’re low income and in East Portland, who cares about their opinion?); or on the various streets that do carry high voltage PGE and PP&L lines throughout east Portland. In fact, trolleybusses could always be given the P.R. spin as “electrifying for the future!” and may even give more ammunition to form a Portland electric PUD.
Wait – I don’t support that… Never mind, more diesel busses! ;-)
Bob. On the contrary, removing transit from Couch is a compromise some opponents would accept. As I said, it would reduce traffic back-ups behind buses and streetcars, reduce the temptation for motorists on Couch to make dangerous lane changes, etc. It would leave the flavor of Couch more like it is now. I’m sure emergency vehicles would benefit greatly to use the transit-only lane.
I suggested these ideas at the Wednesday City Council meeting.
Make Couch one-way now, set up one-way and stop signs accordingly, maybe a stoplight at Broadway. A one-way couch is a good idea for both pedestrians and motorists, IMO.
What may be tricky is the signage on Burnside: “Yield to Transit Vehicles” signs at the Burnside intersections with northbound traffic, special transit-only signalization stoplights at 2nd Ave. Transit prioritization controls at some intersections. Transit left-turn signals to enter the Transit Mall at 5th Ave.