On Saturday morning, seventy community members spent three hours at PSU brainstorming potential future corridors as an informal kick-off to the City-wide rail plan process that will formally launch in September. A few common themes emerged:
- Heading north on MLK or Williams/Vancouver to Alberta or Killingsworth
- Heading east on Hawthorne, Division or Woodstock, ultimately connecting with the Green Line MAX
- A line on 82nd Avenue
- Extending the Burnside line out to Hollywood via Sandy and perhaps returning to the Lloyd District on Broadway/Weidler
Thanks to everyone who participated! We’ll have the maps and notes posted here as soon as they get scanned.
45 responses to “Seventy “Citizen Planners” Plot Streetcar Future”
Putting three of those together: (1) Burnside/Sandy OR Broadway/Weidler to Hollywood, then out Sandy to Park Rose TC. (2) Hawthorne/Foster to Lents TC (effectively replacing #14). (3) Link the first two with an 82nd Avenue (sorry, “Avenue of Roses”) line from Sandy to Foster.
Also, particularly for longer lines, the idea of creating the streetcar lines with trolleybuses is a good one, particularly if the trolleybuses in question are designed like Eugene’s EmX vehicles: 60 feet long, low floor, articulated, with multiple wide doors for fast boarding. Get the lines and stations established and start building ridership, then put in tracks to support 90-120 foot streetcars when ridership is high enough.
I’ve been regretting for the last two days that I couldn’t make it to the workshop.
I would like to add my voice to those advocating for extending the eastside line up MLK, east on Alberta to 33rd, and/or west on Killingsworth to the MAX line.
If possible, I’d also like to encourage creative funding strategies that might allow Portland to construct more than one line simultaneously, in the interest of designing and building an integrated network up front rather than follow the piecemeal MAX approach.
if its between mlk and vancouver/williams, i’ll take v/w any day.
there is a lot of problem already with traffic flow on MLK. also there is a sort of inherent “state highwayness” that seems to get in the way of this street becoming a nice TOD style area. heck you see a bit of non-local freight on it from time to time.
whereas vancouver/williams has a nice even flow of mostly local traffic. it has about the same number of empty lots/parking lots as mlk. so lots of room to grow to pay for the line.
about the same number of empty lots/parking lots as mlk
I think you need to be careful that not only is the land there, but the will to develop it. As I undersrtand it, a lot of that around the hospital has been banked by the hospital for future expansion. I am not sure adding as streetcar will change the timeline on that development one way or another.
My gut feeling is that an MLK line will draw in more people from a wider area, and thus be better utilized.
I also, from a cyclist’s standpoint, wouldn’t mind leaving the nice, wide bike lanes on V/W just the way they are! Purely selfish.
MLK just seems like a busier corridor that is currently unfriendly to just about any use other than driving, and I believe the #6 bus has a high existing ridership. There also is minimal residential along the street, unlike stretches of V/W, which seems more appropriate for rail and would mean a bigger pool of potential LID funding. Lastly, I think it would connect better to Alberta, if not Killingsworth.
Vanc/Williams is ideal.
Close enough to MLK to make an impact, but would allow the preservation of the street trees and parking and 30mph.
Also that ke the ROW would be split on Vanc/Williams extending reach and preserving street space for existing uses. There is less overbuilt property on these two streets and lots of room to grow, as MLK would too.
lots more single family homes on V/W for sure. thats a drawback compared to MLK…
however, in 4 years there will be many more medium/high density residential projects as well as the current industrial/commerical/retail mix. (we’ll see if the industrial remains in 4 years tho).
the connection from MLK to alberta is superior. the connection from V/W to killingsworth is superior.
but mainly, i see MLK as an important auto corridor. if traffic was slowed by a streetcar, it would divert it to the now peaceful V/W, or 15th, or I-5.
whereas a street car alignment to V/W might mean that a few more North Portlanders would move in and use transit. the neighborhoods in the area are CLOSE but not quite fully serviced by the neighborhood retail/transit options. a bank! a grocery store! a drug store!
those would be nice.
MLK already has those… so yea, development potential.
I see both of your points. I think both routes have valid arguments in their favor and both would be a boon for N/NE in general.
The only thing I’ll add is that I could see MLK be a much more effective auto corridor (and have room for the streetcar, and be more business-friendly) if all the median trees were removed and there was more space for turning and street parking. Those trees, much as I love trees, make the street more like a drive-through parkway and encourage speeding.
Oh… and I think MLK has as many medium density infill projects under construction or in the pipeline as V/W, beginning with the workforce-housing Shaver Green, the Graham St Lofts, and the PDC project just south of Fremont. There seems to a lot of active development along MLK right now, in general, from Broadway to Killingsworth. LOTS of “for lease” signs, too, though.
if Trolleybus ridership is high enough, why ever replace them with rail? You’d be paying for the pleasure higher-cost vehicles and less flexibility.
One advantage to Vancouver/Williams is that it’s a couplet, which apparently has greater benefit in leveraging development. I do share the concerns about losing the bike path, though.
if Trolleybus ridership is high enough, why ever replace them with rail? You’d be paying for the pleasure higher-cost vehicles and less flexibility.
Capacity. You can build substantially longer streetcars than trolleybuses. And the rides are smoother and more comfortable. There’s also rider preference: many people who won’t get on a bus that will ride rail transit. (This is not particularly rational, but it’s a fact of life.)
Can somebody explain to me the “Hawthorne, Division or Woodstock” concept?
I’m a bit unclear on the “or” part.
Was this supposed to be “and”?
I could see Hawthorne or Division, perhaps… they’re kind of close.
But Woodstock is quite a ways away.
I suppose Hawthorne/Foster winds up at Woodstock, eventually, but in the interim they’re worlds apart.
Any commentary on this from folks who were at the workshop?
I wasn’t very impressed with the workshop, though the Streetsmart conference Friday was great. I went through a lengthy period of studying potential streetcar expansion lines between 1995-1998, met mostly with disinterest and discouraging words.
My final streetcar proposals were 2 short lines for Clackamas Town Center and Milwaukie that connected to the new MAX lines, theoretically reducing the cost of MAX and using the savings to build these more appropriate inner-district streetcar lines, following the principles of the 2040 Regional Plan. Saturday, my table poo-poo’d my streetcar proposal for Gateway even though it made 3 straightforward connections to MAX at Gateway, 102nd and Division. So much for “Opportunity.”
I compromised with trolleybus proposals in that early study, (on Williams/Vancouver, MLK, etc), and couldn’t get Portland’s most vocal advocate for trolleybuses, Ray Polani, to consider them. Probably best to just keep working on current streetcar expansion plans, see how well they work out before proposing more.
I like the proposed Burnside/Couch couplet streetcar line, the Broadway to Hollywood line, and lastly connect these two lines via Sandy Blvd.
I’m wondering if the streetcar line on Grand might make a better left-turn transition to NE Broadway if it turned east on Lloyd Blvd, then north on 7th and turned left onto NE Broadway there. Just trying to act like an engineer or something.
And the rides are smoother and more comfortable. There’s also rider preference: many people who won’t get on a bus that will ride rail transit. (This is not particularly rational, but it’s a fact of life.)
It is rational, totally. You just stated why in your statement before the rational statement.
People don’t like busses because they are often stinky, dirty, uncomfortable, and don’t ride smooth.
People ride streetcars because of novelty, smooth ride, usually not stinky or dirty (that can change when bums ride and puke on the thing), and are generally far more comfortable than busses.
There’s your answer.
Garlynn,
I was at a table that discussed a Hawthorne-based loop, and it was indeed meant to be “or.” Written algebraically, it would read Hawthorne and (Woodstock or Division). Although we actually discussed Hawthorne and (Belmont or Division), and settled on Division. Other tables may have had similar discussions that included Woodstock, but that is much too far from Hawthorne to be considered a loop.
Can somebody explain to me the “Hawthorne, Division or Woodstock” concept?
All of these corridors were proposed by different people or groups. I was trying to find the common ideas, and heading east to join up with MAX was clearly a common theme, even if there were different ideas about what corridors to do it on.
People don’t like busses because they are often stinky, dirty, uncomfortable, and don’t ride smooth.
People ride streetcars because of novelty, smooth ride, usually not stinky or dirty (that can change when bums ride and puke on the thing), and are generally far more comfortable than busses.
True, Adron, but what I meant is that it isn’t rational to refuse to ride buses while happily getting on a streetcar. I completely understand the preference for rail; given a choice between bus and rail for a given trip, I’ll always chose rail even if it costs more or takes a little longer. The comfort factor, plus I can write and edit on a train which I can’t do while bouncing around on a bus. However, unless the roads are shot with potholes or the buses have eliminated shock absorbers, the buses aren’t that
People ride streetcars because of novelty, smooth ride, usually not stinky or dirty (that can change when bums ride and puke on the thing), and are generally far more comfortable than busses.
With a proper level of investment, busses are just as comfortable as any other form of public transit. There was once a time with the city disinvested in streetcar service, and every single adjective used to describe current bus service was used precisely to describe riding a trolley.
And I can’t even begin to count the number of times I’ve boarded MAX, and encountered drug deals, drunks, smelly people, bums, people urinating, fights – I’ve given statements to police at least once regarding an incident on a MAX train. Never had to do that on a bus. Maybe you should ride a bus sometime.
Nor have I found busses to be “bouncy” (unless I’m standing). Then again, try to do anything while riding MAX between Overlook and Old Town. The lateral G-forces rival that of a roller coaster, with all the accompanying wheel squeal.
With Portland having a population of over 560,000, seventy people is hardly any kind of a compelling mandate to replace a flexible bus system and create more congestion by clogging up Eastside Portland arterials with a snail rail fixed system that requires not only high end up front costs, but oodles reoccurring public debt in the form of taxpayer funded operating subsidies. From strictly a routing standpoint, streets like Ankeny and Clinton that run parallel to arterials offer a far better alternative than attempting to introduce trolley folly mayhem on major streets with heavy traffic volumes. In reality, the transport need to spend public dollars for a full sized Lionel train set play thing that financially only the extreme rich and famous could afford simply does not exist. The Hollywood District for example is already more than transit friendly being served by three bus lines and Max with a station that has room to accommodate far more than the existing numbers of bus transfers.
Furthermore, calling the streetcar a development tool is simply propaganda when much of the new development along the existing streetcar routes has been provided with cheap or highly discounted land from PDC, taxpayer funded subsidies and incentives, and/or property tax abatements for ten years. It is highly unlikely that any transit system in the near future will be constructed and operated as financially self-sustainable with totally user paid funding as was done in the 1920 look-a-like model. Since public dollars do not grow on trees, it is totally absurd to create this kind of never ending public debt that current and future generations of Portlanders will be forever paying the price. A city wide public vote up or down on future streetcar spending must take place before even one more foot of snail rail is planned or laid.
“calling the streetcar a development tool is simply propaganda”
OK, Terry, I’ll bite. If that is “propaganda” then what are your repetitive posts?
I think these streetcar lines need to practice the ‘rapid streetcar’ idea, and have stops spaced widely enough so that they operate like a Limited service, which, when combined with the faster time to board a bus, would make it a fast transit option.
Maybe not a subway, but it defeats the purpose of having any rail system stop every 5 blocks or less, and let only a few people on, when they are designed to load a hundred people at once and travel at a higher speed.
Transportation projects in Portland should, first and foremost, be designed to efficiently and quickly transport people from one place to another; the facilitation of development should occur as a result of this convenience, NOT because of the money spent on streetscaping.
This would also help to prove its utility among the skeptics and general populace.
Nor have I found busses to be “bouncy” (unless I’m standing).
Which may explain the differences in perception here. Many of us don’t have the luxury of always getting a seat. We consider the experience of standing an integral part of the use of transit.
Erik,
I have seen hypodermic needles, passed out drunks, vomit-covered seats, trash, and all sorts of sketchy tweakers on buses. Don’t act like that kind of behavior is exclusive to MAX, or common on either. On MAX at least you can go to the other end of the car and be away from it. I have never felt as uncomfortable on MAX as I have several times on line 6. And did you really see someone urinating on the MAX? I find that hard to believe.
Although we actually discussed Hawthorne and (Belmont or Division), and settled on Division.
You’re kidding.
Are we trying to totally screw up east side traffic routes? Division is mostly two-lane…and the intent with it’s eventual “greening” is even more two lanes instead of four.
I wasn’t feeling well and ended up sleeping in (my wife –I blame her!– tricked me by not setting the alarm.) Boy am I sorry I missed this discussion.
By the way…any discussion about how the east side “loop” is sucking the financial life out of any future east side street car lines?
By the way…any discussion about how the east side “loop” is sucking the financial life out of any future east side street car lines?
Frank, the Loop will be the proof-of-concept and launch pad for the east side lines!
“And I can’t even begin to count the number of times I’ve boarded MAX, and encountered drug deals, drunks, smelly people, bums, people urinating, fights – I’ve given statements to police at least once regarding an incident on a MAX train. Never had to do that on a bus. Maybe you should ride a bus sometime.”
>>>> The MAX circus sure sucks (in more ways than one), doesn’t it, Erik? That’s why this transit head refuses to ride it after 7 PM (and don’t like riding it it general –only if I have to).
Terry Parker said:
“With Portland having a population of over 560,000, seventy people is hardly any kind of a compelling mandate to replace a flexible bus system and create more congestion by clogging up Eastside Portland arterials with a snail rail fixed system…..”
>>>> Now Terry and I are on different ends of the spectrum–he is pro-auto, and I am completely transit oriented because I don’t drive–but I am in agreement with him on this. Putting a web of molasses-like streetcars all over the East Side is one the silliest and stupid things I have ever seen in my 50+ years of transit riding, ever since I was a young kid.
“You’re kidding.”
No, that conversation actually happened. If it is any consolation, we considered the congestion issue, and concluded that if a streetcar loop were to be constructed on Hawthorne/Division (only to 50th or so, we said), that existing bus service should be made express, so that outer SE PDX transit riders would actually benefit. Imagine the existing 4L and 14L service were expanded to run all day. That way, if you caught the bus at, say, 60th and Division, you would run non-stop from where the proposed streetcar service begins. I think that would be a major service improvement, which Trimet seems loath to provide in the current configuration.
I have seen hypodermic needles, passed out drunks, vomit-covered seats, trash, and all sorts of sketchy tweakers on buses. Don’t act like that kind of behavior is exclusive to MAX, or common on either. On MAX at least you can go to the other end of the car and be away from it. I have never felt as uncomfortable on MAX as I have several times on line 6. And did you really see someone urinating on the MAX? I find that hard to believe.
And Grant I will ask the same of you, that you do not act as if that kind of behavior is exclusive to bus service. You make it sound as though you can just get away from it on MAX, when the only advantage that MAX has is that the car is longer (you still can’t go into the next car except at a station stop; provided the train is a two-car train, and provided that the unruly people don’t also get off at the stop, or that there are more unruly people at the stop). And unlike a bus that is smaller, it is easier to move around on a MAX train, and I’ve been on it several times where the unruly people moved about the train.
If service is so bad on line 6, is the immediate solution to make it into a Streetcar? Or is the solution better security? Since TriMet sees fit to have THREE separate security forces on the MAX system (Transit Police, Fare Inspectors, Wackenhut contracted security), has it occurred to you that maybe TriMet should invest in the bus service, including providing additional security? I seem to recall that years ago TriMet placed security guards on the 4-Fessenden line and crime went down dramatically on that route when TriMet put new busses, security cameras, and staffing on the busses. Today nobody talks about that bus line.
So is it really that MAX/Streetcar is safer, or is it the presence of more security on those lines that gives the feeling of security? If so, I would surmise that the same feeling of security could very easily be added onto the bus system, without a multi-billion dollar investment in steel.
Frank, the Loop will be the proof-of-concept and launch pad for the east side lines!
Except all the properties in the Central Eastside Industrial District are promised in the Loop’s Local Improvement District that they won’t be charged for another one –i.e. streetcars going east/west– for ten years. Without the CEID kicking in their (fair) share…where’s the funding for running new lines east/west?
And with OMSI a prominent player on the eastside loop, and having been rebuffed by the Governor’s Office on a state bailout for their old debt…are they really positioned to take on almost a million in new debt for the loop?
I’m kind of a pragmatic guy, Chris. Show me the money…not a “concept” and “launch pad”.
With the CEID folks nervous about the loop and its benefit, and the east side neighborhoods dubious about the benefit…imagine if the launch pad had been something that actually served us and could’ve generated the enthusiasm and financial support of the whole exploding SE out to Foster? Now that would’ve been one heck of a concept-selling launch pad!
SE out to Foster?
Hell…out to Foster and beyond! Montavilla’s catching fire, and of course Lents is undergoing it’s own transformation. A streetcar to the Lents Transit Center! Serving both existing neighborhoods and new development along the route.
Frank, the LID only goes three blocks east of Grand, so I don’t think we’ve consumed much capacity for funding lines going east.
And I don’t think you would have gotten support to put all the TIF in one east-west corridor, so the Loop, which serves the whole urban renewal district is actually a much better approach to attracting TIF dollars.
To go east we’re going to have to find new and different funding mechanisms.
Foster Rd. streetcar line? Division? Vancouver Ave.? I guess the waifs have their begging bowls out. Of course we could encourage them to go after their own MAX lines. That way we know the US economy will never recover but we’ll be saved by further multicultural planning. Why don’t we invite twenty million Chinese over; then we will not only have more riders we will another round of cheap labor.
It may not make it onto boards like this but I think a growing number of Porlanders are getting fed up with activists who calculate on an unending supply of tax revenue. I’ve seen the negative comments listed for Ron Buel’s I-5 removal plea; the overwhelmimng disapproval of Mayor Potters hiring hall; the underlying neighborhood opposition to the Milwaukie MAX. Politicians take note. When this discontent is organized a house cleaning will take place.
To go east we’re going to have to find new and different funding mechanisms.
Or rely on an old one. Portlanders have voted (by solid majorities) in favor of every bond measure to build a MAX line. (For those inclined to start blathering about how this that and the other MAX vote failed, pay attention here: I said Portlanders which means people living in Portland.) There’s strong support in Portland for MAX, and may be similar support for long, “rapid streetcar” lines.
How would a streetcar that was five to ten miles long stand up in competition for federal funding? Never mind “small starts” — go after a federal funding match for a St. Johns to Lents streetcar (for example) after asking voters to approve a bond measure for 1/4 of the project and the state to kick in another 1/4.
I don’t see voters approving a general obligation measure for a short streetcar project only a mile long or so and serving one or two neighborhoods. But they might support a much longer line that crosses numerous neighborhoods, working toward a true “city wide” streetcar system.
Of course, it would have to have community support and make sense as a transit project, but I expect a good long-distance streetcar project could pass a popular vote in Portland.
Ron Swaren. I’d say most streetcar advocates calculate a significant return on the investment of line expansion. Your opposition to taxation may be considerably short-sighted, penny-wise pound foolish political rabble-rousing.
The Oregonian this week reports that Portland, like most US cities, must accommodate 55,000 new residents in the next 25 years, the equivalent of 10 South Waterfront developments. I calculate much of this growth can be accommodated in the proposed Rose Quarter, Lloyd District, Burnside Bridgehead and other eastside development proposals.
The Eastside Loop and the Burnside Couplet streetcar line will help lever the huge tax base of such development, let alone provide the means to manage traffic, support small business, reduce air and water pollution, and address other quantifiable though indirect expenses meant to improve our standard of living. Portland’s streetcar lines may prove to be a bargain. So there.
I think a long distance streetcar system would be a proper solution for Portland–but it must connect to major points. I have never expressed any opposition to the proposed Lake Oswego line, and think it was very fortuitous that they purchased the right of way when they did.
I also have been suggesting that the Milwaukie TC could be served by two routes of streetcar service better than one MAX route. If you look at the photos under “Citizens at Work” I am pointing to another potential route to Vancouver—which could be considered in the future, perhaps a decade from now, when and if further waterfront development in the Portland Vancouver area take shape. The route to Vancouver is important I think because it would be better to renew the immediate area of the AMTRAK station there, instead of focusing high density into the I-5 corridor.
I realize many neighborhoods covet a Streetcar line as a means of improving their neighborhoods. But I think it is fair to ask if the surrounding neighborhood has much appeal. I grew up on Foster Road and could not wait to get out of there. Even if you had nice new condos it just doesn’t have the features within walking distance that would make me want to go back. I feel the same about most of the other mentioned alternatives.
Los Angeles certainly grew dramatically in population–probably mostly through illegal immigration. Now, Oregon communities are seeing the fallout–of disgruntled Californians packing up and moving out of the situation they no longer find desirable. These population demographics frequently mentioned are the result of nationwide trends–some of which can be changed. But I agree that Portland is a desirable place for people to move to and we should prepare. I just don’t accept everything our planners say with no questions. There is a larger picture of social and political forces at work and that is what Americans are rising to challenge.
Certainly the calculations that planners are presently venturing—the need for more MAX lines, the need to replace the I-5 freeway, the need for specialized bridges, a plentitude of streetcar lines, the need for multitudinous fees, taxes and charges–are contingent upon other components of social policy that Americans are calling into serious question. I’ve broadened my perspective out quite a bit from the liberal one I once held. If I sounded sarcastic I was just doing a little venting.
Find a way to do these streetcar lines at a very reasonable cost–like Kenosha WI or East European cities, and I think they would be much more desirable. In fact there is an old route adjoing the Springwater Trail out to East County. Perhaps that would be a cheap one.
Ron Swaren. I see extending MAX from Expo to downtown Vancouver by far a better option than a streetcar line. The MAX terminus in Vancouver is to be near Clark County College and the VA Hospital, a better terminus than the one Vancouver voters rejected in 1995. The proposed expansion is east to Vancouver Mall; again a better expansion than the earlier extension to Clark County Fairgrounds. More growth and people served in Clark County is to the east.
I see the proposed Lake Oswego streetcar line as kind of ‘iffy’. Lake Oswego has another option of the rail bridge that leads to Milwaukie, where a self-propelled train (such as will be used on the Wilsonville-Beaverton line) could junction with the Milwaukie MAX line. Of course, the Lake Oswego streetcar line to Portland would be much less expensive, but will the property owners along the line approve?
Accommodating growth and managing regional traffic are handled differently. It’s been shown that Portland’s low-speed streetcar lines helped direct high-density development. It’s also been shown that managing regional traffic is better achieved with high-capacity, higher-speed MAX light rail lines. Portland’s innovations in these regards are being emulated by other cities. I’d say the real problem is not the high cost as much as the public will to admit that rail transit is so absolutely necessary, the costs must be brought down, capitalism and the so-called free market be damned.
I don’t disagree with extending the Interstate MAX to Vancouver. The other issue that some of us have been dealing with in other venues, is whether the MAX/I-5 corridor should continue to garner the development strategies in Clark County–or should another area be considered? That is why I brought up the streetcar propopsal to the Vancouver AMTRAK station and east to downtown Van.
Why does Portland have only two major north-south routes across the Columbia? By comparison, metro Seattle has three major routes, north and south, and they are all well used. Thus, a third metro Portland route, as we have been proposing in the BNSF corridor, could continue to enhance waterfrontage density infill, especially on the Columbia River waterfront in Vancouver. If waterfrontage in NW Portland continues to develop akin to the Pearl District and the same happens in Vancouver I think a sreetcar line is appropriate. This may have to wait until the next building cycle, though.
If, on the other hand redevelopment in Vancouver concentrates strictly in the I-5 corridor we can expect continued traffic snarls, new bridge or not, MAX or not. So there is a larger picture to consider than the elements you mentioned.
I agree that the streetcar line all the way to LO is “iffy.” That is why I have suggested a connection over the Sellwood Bridge from Milwaukie. This is about 2.6 miles, and it would be much easier to get the streetcar down to the Sellwood Bridge—than all the way through Dunthorpe to LO (although I like that idea).
a third metro Portland route, as we have been proposing in the BNSF corridor
I couldn’t agree more. We certainly need to facilitate alternative to SOV’s, but a third major highway corridor linking Vancouver with the Hwy 30 industrial district is essential for the long-term, in my opinion.
In lieu of MAX, what about commuter rail from Clark County to Union Station?
In lieu of MAX, what about commuter rail from Clark County to Union Station?
I think this is an EXCELLENT idea. If there were a commuter rail with just a single stop in NoPo and then at Union Station that would be much quicker and most likely CHEAPER than a slow snail rail to Vancouver. Couldn’t they do something like they did with the WaCounty commuter rail from PDX to Vancouver? Screw the MAX idea!
And I can’t even begin to count the number of times I’ve boarded MAX, and encountered drug deals, drunks, smelly people, bums, people urinating, fights – I’ve given statements to police at least once regarding an incident on a MAX train. Never had to do that on a bus. Maybe you should ride a bus sometime.
Ditto that. The MAX is a vagrant magnet. Today there were some unruly kids on the MAX kept holding the doors open ON PURPOSE, pushing the attendant button to get the operator’s attention, etc. Did they actually DO anything about it? NO! I live in the Lloyd District and I’ve started riding the 8,9, or 10 bus instead of the MAX. At least on the BUS when someone gets unruly the driver kicks them off. I have yet to see that happen on the MAX or Streetcar! I’ve even seen vagrants with pit bulls on the MAX. Yesterday I saw a guy with a RAT, yes a RAT perched on his shoulder and a pit bull and a giant garbage bag full of cans. Disgusting. This would never happen on a bus. So the argument that MAX or Streetcar is “sexy” is just plain bull.
Sorry for the comment spam….
I was just curious – do the Interstate MAX and the regular rails cross at any point? If they do, then they could build a stop for a commuter rail where the MAX intersects and people from Vancouver could still get on the Yellow line if they need to get somewhere like Overlook and people who need to get downtown could enjoy a much quicker ride than having to deal with the MAX. Perhaps a private company could purchase the Union Station and run such a route. I’m sure people would be willing to pay $5 a ride.
In lieu of MAX, what about commuter rail from Clark County to Union Station?
I think this is an EXCELLENT idea.
I agree. Unfortunately, it is just an idea. It is an idea that has been studied several times and rejected. The barriers are enormous given the heavy use of the rail lines for freight. And it really doesn’t replace MAX, it provides another alternative that works best for people going to downtown Portland. That is not the bulk of the commuter traffic from Clark County.
Greg says
“I was just curious – do the Interstate MAX and the regular rails cross at any point?”
Our proposal for the BNSF crossing as a multimodal bridge would direct the Interstate MAX over there–which happens to be where the Vancouver AMTRAK station is located. It is also proximate to the Columbia River waterfront, which could have a spectacularly attractive district, akin to the Pearl. It is only .8 miles downstream from where the proposed MAX crossing is, so I don’t think is is such a great detour, and then MAX could double back to downtown Vancouver, or they might have their own downtown circulator. Look at what Seattle did with the Waterfront streetcar.
I also think it would promote out of state travel via AMTRAK and is also proximate to the Mult. Co. exposition center. The MAX could stop at: Exposition center, East end of Jantzen beach center, Vancouver AMTRAK station, downtown Vancouver. Hayden Island could have a circulator bus for shoppers and Island residents.
another idea is a line east along N/NE Rosa Parks Way, then north on MLK to NE Dekum St, and then east on Dekum, maybe even into the Cully area via 33rd; this would connect the further North part of NE Portland back to the MAX
I’m founder of the citizen planning movement, having started Citizen Planners in 1978, and Citizen Planners of Los Angeles in 1983. My book “Los Angeles: A History of the Future” was its founding document http://www.paulglover.org/lahofbook.html