Update:
The workshop is tomorrow! RSVP today if you haven’t already…
Update: Venue changed – now at the PSU Smith Center
Get on board and join Commissioner Sam Adams for a brainstorming session to discuss the future of streetcars in Portland. In addition to learning more about the current and future plans for streetcar corridors, participants will be able to roll up their sleeves and work with friends, neighbors, City of Portland planning staff and Commissioner Sam to discuss where future streetcar corridors could occur. Information from the workshop will help the Portland Office of Transportation (PDOT) with preparations for the City of Portland Streetcar System Plan study scheduled to start in September 2007.
Download a flyer for the event.
details after the break…
Saturday July 28, 2007
9am to Noon
University Place Conference Center
310 SW Lincoln Street
Portland, OR 97201
Smith Center Ballroom
1825 SW Broadway
Portland, OR 97201
Agenda
8:45 AM Complimentary Coffee-Tea-Juice-Pastries
9:00 AM Welcome
9:15 AM Overview: The Current Streetcar System and PDOT Streetcar System Planning
9:30 AM Presentation: Then and Now – History of Streetcars in Portland
10 AM Break
10:15 AM Streetcar System Small Group Exercise: Workshop participants divide into small groups and work together with maps, trace paper and markers to discuss and diagram what a
future streetcar system would look like (note: if you’re coming from outside the City of Portland, please bring maps of your location).
10:45 AM Streetcar System Discussion: Each group will have an opportunity to “pin up” their work from the small group exercise, present their ideas, and answer questions from the other
workshop participants
11:45 AM Wrap-Up: Opportunities to learn more about the Streetcar System Plan
To RSVP for this (free) event, please contact Chris Kaluza at 503-242-0084 or e-mail streetcar@portlandtransport.com
But wait, there’s more! If you’d like a full Streetcar immersion experience, please consider coming to the Reconnecting America Regional (Pacific Northwest) Streetcar Workshop the day before. See the invitation postcard, or check out details at www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/workshops. ($75 cost).
62 responses to “Updated: Help Vision Portland’s Streetcar Future”
(I don’t really hate streetcars, but I thought I should get these comments out of the way since I know they’d be here eventually)
Streetcars don’t do nothin’ for nobody!
They get in the way of my SUV!
And in my day we walked uphill 8 miles both ways!
And we liked it!
Etc…
In all seriousness, sounds like a great event.
Sounds like a workshop I want to be a part of, too bad I’m working on Sat. So I just came in to say, they don’t belong on Highway 99, aka MLK/Grand! :)
MLK/Grand is a perfect place for Streetcar. These streets are the main streets for a revitalizing East Portland, where people need to access stores and services on either side.
The existing motor vehicle capacity of those streets is only used one or twice a day, otherwise they sit empty for long periods of time. Time for a “road diet” and what a tastier way to do it than with Streetcar.
While we’re at it, why don’t we build some right down the middle of I-5, I-405 and I-205? After all the capacity of those freeways are only used twice a day.
Better yet, tear the freeways out, replace them with boulevards with Streetcars…you got it.
Portland’s close in neighborhoods are very valuable…look at the prices in NW, inner SE, NE, etc. Freeways destroyed several Portland neighborhoods in the ’50s and 60s before we stopped the monster. Bringing that land back into productive use would bring in more property taxes as well. And I look forward to relaxing on the East Portland beach before I die.
While we’re at it, why don’t we build some right down the middle of I-5, I-405 and I-205? After all the capacity of those freeways are only used twice a day.
There’s already a MAX line alongside I-5 and one going in along I-205. I don’t see much point to an I-405 alignment, with the transit mall alignment going in, and there’s already a streetcar couple on 10th and 11th.
Nice thought, but I don’t see much benefit given existing and planned rail coverage.
Now, I wouldn’t mind replacing the Banfield with a linear park…
I don’t see much point to an I-405 alignment,
Actually there is a point to a MAX along I-405 around downtown. We need an MAX bypass around downtown. It would allow people to get from the east side to the west side without crawling through 13? stops between Lloyd Center and Goose Hollow.
I think it is possible to turn the urban freeways (I5 and Banfiedl) into lower speed/higher capacity boulevards that would recover much of the right-of-way for other purposes while making the roads multi-modal. I think it is highly unlikely it will happen.
“We need an MAX bypass around downtown. It would allow people to get from the east side to the west side without crawling through 13? stops between Lloyd Center and Goose Hollow.”
Why not start by running an express bus, non-stop, between Lloyd Center and Goose Hollow, and back again. Develop the ridership, then build the MAX bypass, which I agree we need.
ps. How do you get quotes to appear italicized?
“Why not start by running an express bus, non-stop, between Lloyd Center and Goose Hollow, and back again. Develop the ridership, then build the MAX bypass, which I agree we need.”
(Italics are done with the html code for italics, like so: <i>this will be italic</i>.)
Because by the time everyone that wants to get on that bus has gotten off the train, onto that bus, and then the bus has driven the route, and the people have gotten back off, the riders have only saved about 5 minutes over staying on the train… And most of the day you have to save 15 minutes to get on the train ahead of you, so 5 minutes won’t gain you anything, you’ll just be on the same train, except you will have had to transfer twice, and probably lost your seat in the process.
Personally, I’m not convinced that we need a subway. Simple close some of the stops: Every stop you close gains you about 90 seconds on the running time. The problem is lack of political will, nobody wants to close “their” stop. (If we did built a subway and it had the same stops in the same places, it wouldn’t be much faster than the current route…)
(If we did built a subway and it had the same stops in the same places, it wouldn’t be much faster than the current route…)
Matt –
I think the idea is that you would have stops between the stops downtown. Essentially you would have an entrance to the subway at Pioneer Square and one at Pioneer Place but they would both serve the same stop in between. Likewise at the Multnomah Athletic Club and Civic Stadium.
I am not sure there is a need for a subway either. I think the regional MAX lines could go around downtown once you had a dense enough street car system to support easy transfers. A streetcar, instead of MAX, from Lloyd Center to Goose Hollow with transfers to MAX on either end would not substantially reduce the ridership.
And if the MAX also connected to street car lines on the south end of downtown it would actually provide better service for people trying to get to the other end of downtown from where they are starting.
But the issue so transfers is a touchy one. Maybe it is essential that MAX stops in the middle of downtown.
“I think the idea is that you would have stops between the stops downtown. Essentially you would have an entrance to the subway at Pioneer Square and one at Pioneer Place but they would both serve the same stop in between. Likewise at the Multnomah Athletic Club and Civic Stadium.”
Uhmmm, okay. Why? People would have to do more walking to get from where they were going to the door of the train that way than would if you kept it on the surface and put the station in the same place, mainly because it would involve a staircase. Sure, you might have escalators instead (although it might be overkill for shallow parts of the system: look at Sunset TC, or Hollywood TC, they have staircases, not escalators, and they seem to work just fine that way.) Now, I admit that it would be partly physiological: People would feel closer to the train because they’d enter the station sooner, but we are still looking at a $2B solution for a problem that could be solved for a less than $1M by removing the shelters, signs, ticket machines, and white tile from the platforms…
I agree with you on the streetcar, if they could keep those stops open and served with a streetcar instead, (it might involve laying some passing tracks on the system, fairly cheap compared to the subway,) that would be deflate a lot of the opposition to “closing” the stops… And I do think a few stops on the “express MAX” should be in downtown, it is just the 13 stops in 2 miles is too many.
So Commissioner Sam does these “town hall” meetings to decry that this city has over $400M in maintenance backlog on its existing city transportation network, and wants to raise taxes to catch it up.
Meanwhile, all of us in the City of Portland pay property taxes that partially go towards the city-wide transportation infrastructure, but now Commissioner Sam wants to take my property tax dollars and shunt it – instead of maintaining my city street – towards a streetcar that serves a small percentage of Portlanders, plus enriches a select few developers, all the while giving them tax credits and breaks that aren’t extended to me to improve my property within the city.
I’ll tell you what, Commissioner Sam. Pick one, or the other. I’ll vote for your tax increase, if you devote 100% of your resources towards clearing up this backlog. But it appears that you want to take my money and give it to someone else, while at the same time I can drive up my street (fortunately which is paved) and see half of the intersecting streets which are gravel, and have been within city limits for decades. Obiviously you are simply playing lip service to the rest of us Portlanders, while kicking it up with your campaign supporters.
Thank God that other than the street in front of my house, the two other routes that I depend on each and every day happen to be ODOT maintained.
Meanwhile, all of us in the City of Portland pay property taxes that partially go towards the city-wide transportation infrastructure
With the exception of Urban Renewal Districts (where there is an expectation that this is an investment that will pay itself back with higher property tax revenue later by increasing property values), property taxes DO NOT go to transportation in Portland.
But let’s get back on topic. This is not about Sam’s maintenance funding proposal (which is NOT being proposed for Streetcar, either capital or operations) and it is NOT about MAX. It’s about getting Streetcar out of the central city to other neighborhoods.
It’s about getting Streetcar out of the central city to other neighborhoods.
I’m all for getting the streetcar out to other neighborhoods, I just have a problem with the eastside loop being routed down the busiest north/south throughfare.
MLK & Grand not only is a busy street, it’s quite the connector too. It has Highway 99/McLoughlin to the south, MLKJ Blvd to the north. Connecting to it are MAJOR streets, such as Broadway, Lloyd Blvd, Burnside, Morrison, and Hawthorne.
Let alone those being busy streets, they’re also direct bridge connections to downtown Portland, ALL traffic from downtown is dumped onto where? MLK & Grand!
I’m all for having an eastside streetcar loop, but it’s really going to suck when we as passengers have to sit in bumper-to-bumper traffic as it is. If any of you think the Streetcar is going to help get traffic flowing better than it is today, that’s hysterical!
By shifting it to 7th Avenue, or any of the immediate parallel streets would allow the Streetcar to move without traffic interference. Don’t believe me? Go ride the streetcar back and forth across Burnside Street at rush-hour, and let me know how many times it had to stop. Not only does it have to stop for other cars, it cannot load/unload people at the end of the block, and usually has to wait for the lone car that’s sitting in front of it.
Look at it this way — MAX was done right, it runs under both Burnside and Morrison bridges, not having to deal with traffic. What if MAX was built down 2nd/3rd Avenues in downtown? Think it would run as smoothly?
To me, talking about putting MAX in a subway does involve the streetcar’s future, because surface tracks could then become streetcar tracks. The fourteen stops from Lloyd Center to Goose Hollow make for a really bad MAX line, but would be a pretty good streetcar corridor. Picture two streetcar routes down Morrison/Yahmill: NW 23rd to Hawthorne and Goose Hollow to Lloyd Center.
I’d also like to see a historic/vintage streetcar line from Sellwood to OMSI via Oaks Park. It would be more of a tourist line with limited value to commuters, but could be put on existing track and would connect to both MAX and the Portland Streetcar at the north end.
Also, I like a line out East Burnside to 28th.
By shifting it to 7th Avenue, or any of the immediate parallel streets would allow the Streetcar to move without traffic interference.
The local district rejected 7th due to the necessary change in zoning (7th is currently in the industrial sanctuary and it doesn’t make sense to put Streetcar where it does not enable development).
One of the requirements put on the project is a traffic and transportation management plan to show that it will work on the corridor. I think you’ll see some improvements in signalization that help a lot.
The fourteen stops from Lloyd Center to Goose Hollow make for a really bad MAX line, but would be a pretty good streetcar corridor.
I agree and also think that a streetcar would be a good fit for the remaining local ridership, given that the route is right near the river (meaning a smaller area to draw people from) and is “cross-town”. Sadly, adding tracks to the mall has kind of made talk of a subway moot.
improvements in signalization
I’m curious, are they synchronized currently? And as for the streetcar event, I think I’ve read that Sam is good at leading events like this.
Yes, MLK & Grand are currently synchronized with the exception of the MAX crossing near Convention Center.
As for zoning, Portland can change it.
A random thought: Has the idea of midblock stops been explored? This would avoid having to wait for other automobiles stopped at a light, especially when it is just one car. When light clears, that car is probably still waiting for pedestrians to cross before turning right or left, and when the streetcar finally pulls into the stop, the light has already changed by then.
If Portland changed the zoning, the district would rise up and prevent the project (if by no other means than changing their position on the Local Improvement District – today we have overwhelming support, that would turn into heels-dug-in-opposition if the City changed the zoning). This is very much about consensus, and the consensus if for MLK/Grand.
I believe that depending on the situation we are looking at both mid-block and far-side (i.e., immediately AFTER the intersection) stops in some places.
Chris –
What is the advantage of “near side” stops? There must be some since they are standard, but what are they?
One advantage of near-side stops is that in low to moderate traffic, where the odds are good that the transit vehicle will be able to reach the platform without being stuck behind cars, is that loading/unloading can occur during the time when a traffic light is red.
Another factor to consider when locating platforms is what kind of transfer activity is taking place at the intersection… If there happens to be a large number of transfers to a bus line running on the cross-street, it may be better to cluster the platforms near corners (combining a near-side stop for one bus and a far-side stop for the cross bus) so that transferees do not need to cross a busy street as often.
– Bob R.
This is very much about consensus, and the consensus if for MLK/Grand.
Yet there is no consensus on paying for this streetcar’s operating costs.
Yet there is no consensus on paying for this streetcar’s operating costs.
We’re getting there, but it’s going to take some time. I expect that we’ll put in a ‘placeholder’ plan for the Federal application in September (probably showing service only from OMSI to the Pearl) with minimal commitment of new funds from the City and TriMet and then continue the discussion during the construction period to figure out how to fund OMSI to RiverPlace. That’s going to pretty clearly have to include a review of Fareless Square, which of course needs to be a pretty thorough conversation.
But let’s get back on topic. This is not about Sam’s maintenance funding proposal (which is NOT being proposed for Streetcar, either capital or operations) and it is NOT about MAX. It’s about getting Streetcar out of the central city to other neighborhoods.
OK.
Step 1: City of Portland takes over all transit operations from TriMet, relegating TriMet to a suburban transit agency (like CTA/PACE in the Chicagoland area.) Charter is to handle all mass transit functions within city limits only.
Step 2. City of Portland does a ridership analysis of each bus route. (To determine where additional service is needed, which routes are popular, etc.)
Step 3. All high density bus routes upgraded to Streetcar. (Incremental bus improvements to other routes; extremely low ridership routes discontinued, etc.)
By doing this, Metro and TriMet could be eliminated from local transit planning, leaving all transit decisions in the hands of one board of directors, and allow for local planning and local funding of all projects. Since the same board would also have to decide on street improvements, the concept of focusing on transportation as a whole could be finally realized instead of a piecemeal approach that we currently employ.
Erik, there is honestly little sense to the argument that the nerve center of a regional transit network should be hijacked and then managed by one municipality within that region. There are already too many competing interests for too few dollars. There is a much greater argument to be made for a single entity to control the entire system with the objective being the greater good of the whole region and not of the individual and often quarreling municipalities. Everybody needs to put their egos aside and plan for the best of the region as a whole, and that simply can not be achieved when each municipality has the control to implement their own disparate priorities. Nothing would EVER get accomplished under that model.
Erik, I think the core of your idea – unifying planning across modes – could have some benefits. There has been a suggestion of a regional transportation authority that would handle transit, roads, bridge, etc. But it would make no sense on a municipal basis, it would have to be regional.
Step 2. City of Portland does a ridership analysis of each bus route. (To determine where additional service is needed, which routes are popular, etc.)
Actually, this will happen as part of the City-wide rail plan process. I believe a consultant is already at work on something called a PTN (Primary Transit Network) analysis.
Ugh. Streetcar is nice and all, but I find it to be way to slow to replace a functioning bus route. Unless we can space the streetcar stops far enough and get the vehicles cracking 20mph, I would not, for example, want to convert routes from bus to streetcar except in a few specific cases.
Joseph,
In my suggestion, TriMet would become the “regional” service provider, providing service OUTSIDE of Portland (i.e. the suburban routes), and the City would take over routes within Portland city limits.
Right now, what you describe as the problem is exactly what is happening today. Metro controls TriMet’s capital funding – and Metro is dictating that it goes towards light rail.
As a result, the regional system (which includes the bus network) is suffering, all thanks to Metro. TriMet simply acts like a little puppy dog and wags its tail and obliges. By forcing the City of Portland (which already has to manage its own city street system) to take over the city bus routes, a more comprehensive transportation system can emerge.
Such has and is being proven in communities where the same agency controls highways and mass transit; the Orange County Transportation Authority is one example where the OCTA not only runs the area busses, but also acts as the MPO (which Metro does in the Portland region). As a result OCTA is forced to balance mass transit interests with highway interests and fund both. The result is a massive investment in ALL modes of transport, serving ALL residents, instead of our subsidization of the rich at the expense of the poor and the suburban.
Erik,
Your post makes for nice conspiracy theory reading but is light on actual facts.
You say, “Metro controls TriMet’s capital funding – and Metro is dictating that it goes towards light rail.”
And who, Erik, exactly is this Metro? Why it is a regional entity with regional representation. Attend a few JPACT meetings and look at the process and you will see that you insinuation is absurd.
You say, “As a result, the regional system (which includes the bus network) is suffering, all thanks to Metro. TriMet simply acts like a little puppy dog and wags its tail and obliges.”
So TriMet is a little puppy dog? Again, look at how the system works- and interestingly you have described TriMet as much more than a puppy dog in other posts- so which is it?
You continue to rant and be angry. It’s slightly hilarious that you think we should look to Orange County for leadership…time for you to get informed and quit posting the same thing over and over again. Or better yet- work for real change instead of just writing about it.
Or better yet- work for real change instead of just writing about it.
I am not sure that is such a good idea. I think this is a better place for rants and raves against the system than the public process of actual decision making.
I’m hoping that streetcar lines on MLK & Grand will have a traffic calming effect. Grand Avenue’s four lanes of traffic lead directly to freeway on-ramps and the traffic is like a raceway. MLK traffic speed however is just as horrific.
Awhile back, I considered a freeway connector between I-5 and McLoughlin Blvd to divert traffic off MLK/Grand. Since then, I’ve given more thought to the idea that we drive too much, duh, and enabling more traffic with this connector is backward thinking. If the need for long-distance travel must be reduced, so too the need for long-distance travel via transit must be reduced; which questions whether subways and express tracking is also backward thinking.
Thinking about how cities and suburbs direct growth to reduce the need for long-distance travel, developing the eastside makes sense. The eastside streetcar lines will enable eastside development that can take pressure off the westside. Development must not be solely central city, but developing the eastside should prove to be good economics.
There is talk about one day decommissioning the Marquam Bridge and shifting I-5 to I-405. The only way I can see it happening is if we motorholics get over our addiction/dependency. The other day, I went past a used car lot and a shady-looking dealer whispered, “Psst. Hey buddy. You need anything?”
I figure Grand has way more development potential than MLK, south of Burnside. Likewise south of Burnside, 7th has more potential than MLK. (Chris, please don’t go all authoritarian about how your ideas are better, thanks)
So, it seems to me that the eastside streetcar line could be split between Grand and 7th.
Here’s an idea:
Route line south past Convention Ctr on MLK to Couch. Turn west through the Bridgehead development. Locate a stoplight at 3rd on Burnside Bridge so the line could turn east on Burnside streetcar line. Turn south on 7th and run all the way to (let’s say) Division Place. Turn west and go under the viaduct.
Oh, that’s just crazy-crazy-crazy! Wheee! OK everybody, force this idea down the memory hole. What idea?
Hmmm… I’ve never thought of myself as an authoritarian.
Wells, I agree that 7th has more development potential than MLK.
But I also know that we’ll lose the neighborhood support if we try to go there.
I am a huge streetcar supporter but I think we need to be real careful on this city-wide plan. We can’t build a streetcar line on one of the major eastside streets (like Belmont or Hawthorne) and have the streetcar line terminate at 39th/42nd or even around 60th Street. It either has to completely replace the existing bus line’s full route (like going all the way out to I-205 and beyond) or you end up providing duplicate service on the same street in the inner eastside with both buses and streetcars which is hardly an efficient and cost effective plan. I think it is wise to look carefully at electric trolley buses for these major routes which I believe are better suited to the nature of the main east side bus routes and would be much more cost effective for electrifying the entire route.
Chris. Running one track on 7th, southbound, is not the same as running both tracks on 7th. And, what you should say is, “we’ll lose ‘some’ of the neighborhood support.” The idea is just as likely to gain some neighborhood support.
How about if the southbound bike lane is removed and 7th Ave restriped for two lanes of traffic southbound, an extra lane for the streetcar line? I’m quite sure that ‘some’ who don’t like the idea of a streetcar on 7th, also don’t like that 7th went from 4-lanes to 2-lanes not that long ago.
What makes you authoritarian, Chris, is that sometimes your explanations why an idea won’t work are insufficient or inadequate. The authoritarian in you doesn’t want to bother explaining in detail what’s wrong with little people’s ideas. If this idea were suggested by Greg Goodman, you’d be a lot more detailed in your answer and a lot less dismissive.
That said, I support the eastside streetcar expansion. I know it’s a lot of work. MLK will be just fine, I suppose. I just like to consider all route options. How’s the Burnside Couplet doing? I like the streetcar going up East Burnside to 14th and then following the proposed half-roundabout and back down on Couch. That would be cool. Do you see how I incorporated this 7th Ave idea into the Burnside Couplet Streetcar Line? Crazy-crazy-crazy-crazy me!
I think you mean authoritative, rather than authoritarian :-)
I sat through 3 years of project advisory committee meetings where the neighborhood hashed this out so to say “The idea is just as likely to gain some neighborhood support” is to make the assumption that all these combinations were not examined. They were. The neighborhood very much wants to protect the industrial sanctuary (which starts at 6th). There was definitely a vocal minority that wanted to see 7th, but they ultimately bought into a consensus for MLK/Grand.
In any event, this decision is past (two City Council votes and a Metro Council vote). The decisions now are about how to pay for it and details like where to put the stops.
I’m not about squelching discussion, but I’m also not about falsely providing hope that some things that have already been decided can be re-opened without significant costs or delay.
So, what about the Burnside Couplet Streetcar idea? That ought to be on the table at this time. Is it too late to discuss the possibility of a westbound transit-only lane on West Burnside, or has that idea already been decided against? I still think it could work. No one has convinced my little glob of grey matter otherwise. Traffic on Couch certainly could be smoothed-out if there were no transit stops, right? Less switching of lanes, less back-ups behind buses and streetcars. Either way, the Burnside Couplet Streetcar needs a hearing. I like the idea.
The Burnside Streetcar is still very much in the early concept stage. By all means bring up your ideas – better yet, bring them on Saturday!
“I think it is wise to look carefully at electric trolley buses for these major routes which I believe are better suited to the nature of the main east side bus routes and would be much more cost effective for electrifying the entire route.”
>>>> Nope, the railfans won’t like this. Better to build the pokey and inflexible trolley lines only out so far, force transfers, and screw the the riders. Anyway, trolley buses are also “inflexible.” With both, you lose the options of providing any express or limited services. The older I get, the more I appreciate the versatility of diesel buses.
And how come these trolleys are planned for gentrified/ing neighborhoods (mostly)? Are they really just toys for the relatively affluent rail crowd?
“I am not sure that is such a good idea. I think this is a better place for rants and raves against the system than the public process of actual decision making.”
>>>> Right! Since the public process here is a sham to begin with. Apparently, Neil’s ghost is still very much present.
You know, I’ve thought about going to meetings, but then I decided, what’s the use, everything is pre-decided anyway.
And who, Erik, exactly is this Metro? Why it is a regional entity with regional representation. Attend a few JPACT meetings and look at the process and you will see that you insinuation is absurd.
OK, Hawthorne. Enlighten me.
1. When has JPACT or any other Metro governing body since 1997 authorized capital funding towards improving bus service?
2. When has JPACT or any other Metro governing body since 1997 considered any form of public transit other than MAX or Streetcar for federal flex transportation dollars?
3. Are Metro governing body public meetings held at times when working class citizens can attend and provide public input and opinion – or are the meetings only open to those who don’t have to work or can set their own working hours? (In other words, shutting off the involvement of 70% of the region’s residents.)
When has JPACT or any other Metro governing body since 1997 considered any form of public transit other than MAX or Streetcar for federal flex transportation dollars?
LOPAC, the advisory committee for the Willamette Shorline/Highway 43 corridor has explicitly looked at both Streetcar and Bus Rapid Transit.
Are Metro governing body public meetings held at times when working class citizens can attend and provide public input and opinion – or are the meetings only open to those who don’t have to work or can set their own working hours?
LOPAC meets at 5:30pm, alternating between Lake Oswego and Portland venues.
Nick opined: You know, I’ve thought about going to meetings, but then I decided, what’s the use, everything is pre-decided anyway
That’s the spirit, Nick. What better way to ensure government is responsive to your needs than to avoid meetings altogether. Then, when you don’t get what you want, you can declare the whole process rigged. Double bonus. Kudos.
– Bob R.
When has JPACT or any other Metro governing body since 1997 considered any form of public transit other than MAX or Streetcar for federal flex transportation dollars?
Commuter Rail?
When has JPACT or any other Metro governing body since 1997 considered any form of public transit other than MAX or Streetcar for federal flex transportation dollars?
Metro explicitly took MAX off the table to start the South Corridor study. It was only revived as on option because the neighborhoods in Southeast Portland and Milwaukie insisted on it after considering BRT and commuter rail as alternatives.
“3. Are Metro governing body public meetings held at times when working class citizens can attend and provide public input and opinion – or are the meetings only open to those who don’t have to work or can set their own working hours? (In other words, shutting off the involvement of 70% of the region’s residents.)”
Erik,
If you truly cared about your rhetorical questions and making a difference you would already know the answer to this. I suspect you like ranting instead.
The answer is: yes. JPACT often meets early in the morning before the work day begins and at night. Besides, there are plenty of other ways for people to provide input.
I suggest that you try them.
“3. Are Metro governing body public meetings held at times when working class citizens can attend and provide public input and opinion – or are the meetings only open to those who don’t have to work or can set their own working hours? (In other words, shutting off the involvement of 70% of the region’s residents.)”
You can always take vacation time to go to the meetings, most of them are only a couple of hours. I’ve done that, although my company lets me take less than a day’s vacation at a time… If the meeting is really important to you, you’ll do that too. The fact that you don’t, says a lot about how important it actually is in your mind…
Last week, I attended a meeting in Milwaukie held jointly by several agencies, regarding public input for a revised alignment for Milwaukie Light Rail.
The meeting was held at the high school from 6 to 9 PM. This was a “workshop” meeting with large tables and maps set up, as well as tools for marking up the maps, printed guidelines for streetscapes and ROW, etc. There were about 10 tables, each of which was facilitated by an agency staffer. There were planners and engineers and upper-level management on hand to answer questions and move between the tables. The Mayor of Milwaukie was there. All-told, there were at least 15-20 officials and staffers present at this local, accessible evening meeting.
I’m well aware that a number of other meetings are held during normal business hours, especially the smaller committees. But if all public meetings were to be held in the evenings at out-of-office locations, who would pay for all the staff overtime and travel necessary to make this happen?
(Incidentally, I counted 6 Prii and a Honda Civic Hybrid in the parking lot, but 2 were older fleet vehicles, the rest were private-party.)
– Bob R.
You can always take vacation time to go to the meetings, most of them are only a couple of hours.
This is a luxury that not everyone can afford – and meetings only take a few hours if you’re physically close to the location the meeting is being held at. I’ve attended several meetings where someone speaks that the only way they’re able to attend is because, by chance, they were scheduled for the day off (occasionally, they add they weren’t called in). Your average service industry worker (food, coffee, call center, IT, to name a few that many people use everyday without thinking of it) is in some cases lucky if they even get their paid days off. (That’s beyond the scope of this site.)
“This is a luxury that not everyone can afford – and meetings only take a few hours if you’re physically close to the location the meeting is being held at.”
I’ve worked in food service, and the demand for good help is so high that when I wanted to take time off, (with appropriate notice,) while it was indeed unpaid, they let me take it… (And I now work in QA, and now I get paid time off and flex time, but that is indeed a different story…) And as such, I’ve always suspected that the sort of people that lose their jobs over wanted to take a couple hours off to go to a meeting were the sort of people that weren’t very good, or that nobody could stand to be around anyways… (Not that I’m saying that some people are whinny and annoying on this board, and probably in real life too, and as such, probably aren’t much fun to be around, and if I was their boss I’d be looking for an excuse to get rid of them too, but…)
This discussion of streetcar line expansion sure has flopped. I suppose most views have already been aired here, but with the upcoming weekend events, one would think discussion specific to streetcar lines could go on and on.
Back before the original streetcar was approved, my most specific argument was that it made a good connection to MAX at the Galleria Station. I considered the initial line a ‘circulator’ complimentary to regional MAX light rail. One could also argue that the eastside streetcar makes a similarly symbiotic connection to MAX at Grand and NE 7th.
The Oregonian article mentions Sandy Blvd streetcar line first. Such a line would naturally terminate in Hollywood and probably be an expansion of the Burnside Couplet streetcar line, yes?
Wells, one idea I heard recently was to run Burnside->Sandy to Hollywood, then back from Hollywood->Lloyd->Lovejoy/Northrup and complete a loop on NW 21st/23rd.
I’d think the transit demand between Lloyd and Hollywood Districts is enough to justify a double-track line between them and to NW 23rd. The Burnside Bridgehead development of East Burnside to 14th, and the complete couplet likewise justifies a double-track line between West 23rd and East 14th.
Double-track on Sandy from East 14th to Hollywood and double-track on 23rd (Northrup/Lovejoy to Burnside) would make an interesting circulur loop, for sure, but I’d want eastside development to proceed first. And NW 23rd traffic may be the last obstacle to completing the loop.
I’ve done that, although my company lets me take less than a day’s vacation at a time… If the meeting is really important to you, you’ll do that too. The fact that you don’t, says a lot about how important it actually is in your mind…
Then I’m sure you will be happy to offer me a job at your company. My job offers no such flexibility.
If my “rants” are, well, “rants” then I surmise that your opinions discussed here are also rants? Or is this another personal attack against someone because you disagree with my views, so instead of discussing my views you have to attack me?
Hawthorne says: “Besides, there are plenty of other ways for people to provide input.
I suggest that you try them.”
Just for your info about two years ago I wrote to just about evey politician in the three county area on issues relating to transportation. Not a damn one of them took the time to reply to me.
Try all you want. If you disagree with their agenda they don’t care.
MW
I wrote to just about evey politician in the three county area on issues relating to transportation … If you disagree with their agenda they don’t care.
Did you offer them anything useful? Once people are elected you have to persuade them you are right. If you fail you can blame them, not vote for them and persuade others to join you. Beyond that there isn’t anything you can, or should, do.
I think some of the complaints here are from people who are frustrated that they can’t persuade people they are right. I certainly fit that category sometimes. It seems obvious to me that the Delta Park project is a disaster. But its a done deal and has been for a long time.
Frankly, I suspect the same is true of a new highway bridge across the Columbia that will drown the Portland transportation system in traffic. Politicians are followers, not leaders. You have to persuade enough of your fellow citizens before they are going to pay much attention.
I’m somewhat more optimistic about the Columbia Crossing than Ross. It’s a project with a probably six billion dollar price tag, plausible alternatives already out there in wide circulation, and some elected officials openly skeptical. The Mt. Hood Freeway was a done deal once, as was the Westside Bypass. In this part of the world, at least, big freeway projects don’t always come about.
Chris — when do we get the report from the workshop?
djk –
I hope you are right, but I think that six billion dollar price tag is part of the problem. You can see that as a barrier, but there are a lot of people who see it as $6 billion worth of economic activity funded by the federal government. The price tag is not an argument against it, its a reason for building it.
Anyway, my point was that some of the anger and frustration here is from people who have failed to persuade enough other people they are right.
After what happened last night, I really hope that people will think twice about keeping the Interstate Bridge in service. Vancouver wants light rail, it helps everyone.
On top of it, the bridge being more lanes, with only 3 through lanes won’t hurt anyone, other than those living north of Delta Park until it’s done. I’d be happy just knowing that the bridge I drive north on every morning is safe.
I-5 should be 4+aux lanes in some areas approaching I-405 also, but Portland will say no.
Why? Because light rail has become king, regardless that I’m one half of my co-workers who use it more than once a week. The other guy uses it daily, and that’s rad. The problem is he needs a ride from me to get to the office in under 2 hours. Buses aren’t that fast.
I take the buses a bit for non-work things, I can’t afford the reputation of being late all the time. They’re great, but only when it’s a casual trip I can leave early for.
We can support light rail, excellent bus service, and roads all at once. San Diego (where I lived for 5 years) just passed a .5% sales tax that will raise $42b. A gas tax improvement here could make Portland into a world class city, where people feel safe on our bridges.
I think the collapse in Minneapolis can just as easily be used as an argument for the local arterial bridge. The highway in Minneapolis is now closed and will be until the bridge is replaced, but there is an adjacent local arterial bridge they will be able to route traffic over. Redundancy is not a bad thing.
We can support light rail, excellent bus service, and roads all at once. San Diego (where I lived for 5 years) just passed a .5% sales tax that will raise $42b. A gas tax improvement here could make Portland into a world class city, where people feel safe on our bridges.
You’re absolutely right – we CAN, but until the “leadership” at Metro that controls the purse strings, and at TriMet that refuse to invest some of that money in the bus system, we aren’t going to.
What if the West Hills Tunnel collapses – or the Vanport Bridge, or the Steel Bridge (wasn’t there a fear of structural weakening a few years ago when a natural gas pipeline next to the bridge exploded??) Don’t say it can’t because it was meant to withstand an earthquake, no one thought the New Orleans levees would collapse either; or the Big Dig tunnel would have problems right away. Acres of busses were left for ruin in New Orleans because they weren’t used, and the Desire Streetcar didn’t exactly help with evacuation efforts.
All the more reason to properly invest in all modes of transport, INCLUDING BUSSES. At least if one of the many bridges that I cross fails, a bus can detour. Light rail trains can’t – and at rush hour, there aren’t enough busses to support everyone. (Maybe it’s also a good reason to build TWO new Interstate Bridges, as well as to keep just the newest of the two current spans.)