According to an article in the O, a consultant reporting to the Clackamas County Board of Commissioners has concluded that TriMet routes are not aligned efficiently for commute trips:
“We’re behind our neighbors and the rest of the nation,” said Yung Ouyang, who presented the analysis to Clackamas County commissioners Tuesday. “Nobody can get to work on time using TriMet.”
Although most Clackamas County workers are within walking distance — defined as a quarter mile — of a bus stop, they use public transportation less than workers in Multnomah and Washington counties.
Clackamas County commuters who take the bus spent an average of 45 minutes one way, according to figures from the 2000 U.S. Census, compared with 39-minute trips for Multnomah County and the state.
44 responses to “Clackamas County Transit in Wrong Places?”
Well, most of this problem is of the County’s own making by locating county offices in places poorly served by transit. The BCC adopted a long range master plan to consolidate their offices in the “Red Soils” area on the hilltop in Oregon City. While it makes considerable sense to consolidate the employees in one place, they consciously chose a location served by only one bus line.
Keep in mind, they moved many of their employees out of downtown Oregon City which is a designated regional center and has a transit center served by six bus lines, including the 99 Express.
While I agree that Clackamas County would benefit from and deserves expanded TriMet service, it is not fair to put most of the blame on TriMet’s shoulders (in my humble opinion), at least as it relates to the few commute options available to county staff.
Many of the TriMet routes in Clackamas Co. are either weekday-only and/or have such erratic schedules that it makes using them next to impossible.
Yes, it’s true that a few routes have Frequent Service along Clackamas Co. portions – specifically 33-McLoughlin, 72-Killingsworth/82nd, and 75-39th/Lombard – but venturing off any of those routes without a schedule is dicey at best. And two of the three frequent services routes have very small portions of their routes in Clackamas Co., and therefore serve a small number of residences/employers.
I’ve known people with low-paying bottom-of-the-barrel jobs that had to maintain an old beater to get to their shifts outside of 8-5 M-F (and those jobs required working odd hours and weekends, they were never working 8-5 M-F in the first place).
Another interesting personal observation: a sign at Oregon City TC shows you where the welfare offices are and how to get there. It’s made me wonder if those are the only ones being adequately served in Clackamas Co.
Brian, as I read the article, this was not about employees of of the County, but employees in the County (i.e., all employers in the County)?
Well, most of this problem is of the County’s own making by locating county offices in places poorly served by transit.
Isn’t the problem larger than county employees?
Part of the issue is certainly that political support for transit from elected leaders in Clackamas County has been relatively weak. The BCC was dominated by people focused on the less densely developed unincorporated areas rather than the cities where transit was most likely to succeed.
But the politics has changed. And with the Milwaukie MAX line on the horizon, its good to see the BCC looking at how to improve the quality of transit service.
Brian, as I read the article, this was not about employees of of the County, but employees in the County (i.e., all employers in the County)?
I don’t think so Chris. The county actually commissioned the study to determine how many of their own employees use transit. From my converations with Lynn, my impression is that the study looked soley at employees of the County government, not all employees who live in the county, but I will double check.
Certainly, using transit is more challenging for suburban residents due to the dispersed nature of their trips and the poor service in many neighborhoods. My earlier point was simply that this is compounded when the public sector also chooses remote employment sites. They should at least be leading by example.
I expect the jobs/housing balance has something to do with this as well. Like Clark county, Clackamas county has fewer jobs than people, so more travel is required.
Someone, Brian?, should dig out the Metro Rideshare study to look at the clustering around various employment areas.
And shame on the county for moving all its offices out onto the edge…guaranteed to make matters worse and sets a very poor example for the private sector.
TriMet should not be expected to use limited resources where development patterns do not support the transit option.
Well, that was fast. I just checked and I am wrong. The county is indeed planning to do a study of their own employees work trips in order to convince TriMet to increase service to the Red Soils campus, but the article in the Oregonian is about a separate study that looked at multiple employers in Clackamas County. My bad.
They should at least be leading by example.
Absolutely. They could have focused their relocation efforts in the downtown Oregon City area and helped build up that area as a regional center. Eventually MAX will go to downtown Oregon City, probably first via I-205 and later via 99E, and in the long-term they would not be facing this conundrum, while in the short-term they’d at least have high quality transit service from the 33-McLoughlin. Ultimately it was their decision making that led them to this situation, and now they need to petition Trimet to better serve their chosen location.
I was poring over maps of OC a few weeks ago wondering about this very situation and how it should be addressed in the long-term (obviously the short term is simply to send some buses down that road, maybe even south along 213 as well, which is becoming quite a heavily traveled corridor itself). Could a MAX route parallel to 205 easily jaunt over to within walking distance of the county offices site en route to the downtown OC transit center?
The county offices, as does downtown OC, need good transit connections to Milwaukie TC/Portland and also to Clackamas TC, south to future park & rides along 213 and 99E (easy when line 33 is half-replaced by MAX to Milwaukie, keeps the total route from being way too long), and west to West Linn/Lake O and Tualatin/Sherwood/Wilsonville. This could and should all be accomplished using BRT concepts in the near term, but does Trimet have the patience to first put the routes in place and then wait to see how usage patterns will evolve over time to support further – and continuing – investment in high-quality transit in these corridors? It seems to me that BRT (or BRT-like) routes should have been placed along I-205 between Tualatin and Oregon City (possibly even to Clackamas TC) ages ago. The only present link in that route is the line 79 (b/w OC & CTC), a corridor that I’m surprised doesn’t have better transit service even today.
Is the problem that the buses are in the wrong streets, or that Clackamas County isn’t very dense, and it is just hard to have good public transit when density it low? Don’t get me wrong, both of those problems are fixable, but one of them is a long (30+ years,) and difficult [politically] process and one of them just involves sitting down with TriMet and a map…
In any case, I wonder how this will look in 10 years after they have two MAX lines… Washington Country has the same problem 15 years ago too.
It seems to me there are two different hypotheses:
1) Clackamas County is not dense enough to support efficient transit service.
2) Transit Service in Clackamas County is not routed efficiently for the existing land uses.
I wonder if the consultant attempted to differentiate between these two.
TriMet is the “Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon”, not the “MAX District of Oregon”. It has a LEGAL responsibility to provide quality transit services to the area within its service district, which includes a significant part of Clackamas County.
Whether you feel that there is a lack of density, or poor development, is entirely besides the point. TriMet has a legal obligation to serve it, or it has a legal obligation to throw up its hands and de-annex the territory.
Further, the argument that “Oregon City will have MAX in ten years? twenty years?” does not relieve TriMet of its legal responsibility of providing quality transit service NOW. For far too long, TriMet has focused 100% of its planning efforts on providing MAX to a few residents, resulting in disinvestment of bus service elsewhere. (The last time there was a significant improvement in bus service was in 1997, when Westside MAX was opened; and this was in part to provide equality to Clackamas County for not having MAX – since then, bus service has been on a steady decline, few if any routes have been added, capital investment has been next to zero, and the quality of bus service has declined.)
TriMet is very clearly at blame for this. It has a legal responsibility to provide transit – it is THE agency charged with providing transit services THROUGHOUT the service district. Metro is equally at fault, for failing to provide federal flex dollars that could be used to enhance bus transit in Clackamas County (and elsewhere), instead focusing those dollars on a select few projects that don’t serve the region as a whole.
TriMet has two options – act like the “Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation Service District” that it claims to be, or do what C-Tran did and retract its service boundary to the central city (Portland), and let the rest of the area deal with their own problems. Unfortunately for TriMet, they know that there is no way that Portland can sustain its expensive to operate mass transit system without the suburbs paying into it.
“Whether you feel that there is a lack of density, or poor development, is entirely besides the point.”
No, that is the point. If you don’t actually know what a problem is, it is almost impossible to solve it. (I mean, if you just want to complain about TriMet, then, you are right, it doesn’t matter, but…)
This is an interesting question. Perhaps we are approaching transit service from the wrong perspective. We certainly don’t decide whether a road will be available based on density.
So what would happen if we made the goal universal transit service? We know what minimum level it takes for people to use transit – generally withing a quarter mile and 15 minute frequencies.
Perhaps transit should be funded through a property tax based on the cost of providing service. Less dense areas would get the same service, but the individual property owners would end up paying more since there were fewer of them to share the cost.
“We certainly don’t decide whether a road will be available based on density.”
The bus is available. Most of Clackmas County has some level of transit service, it just isn’t as good as other (denser) places in the region. It is exactly the same as with roads, low density areas tend to get surface streets, where as higher density areas get arteries and freeways. (Of course, there are freeways in the middle of nowhere, but only because they are going from someplace else to someplace else.) But my point is that Cannon Beach doesn’t have a freeway because of lack of density, where as Portland has several.
“We know what minimum level it takes for people to use transit – generally withing a quarter mile and 15 minute frequencies.”
You are talking about running buses that would pick up very few people per bus-hour. At some density level, it would just be cheaper to pay for cabs, than to run a bus every 15 minutes…
“Perhaps transit should be funded through a property tax based on the cost of providing service. Less dense areas would get the same service, but the individual property owners would end up paying more since there were fewer of them to share the cost.”
You mean, we actually charge people for their land use choices? I’m in.
You are talking about running buses that would pick up very few people per bus-hour. At some density level, it would just be cheaper to pay for cabs, than to run a bus every 15 minutes…
Agreed. The cost is almost certainly prohibitive. But it would be interesting to know what it would take to create a “universal transit” system
And what the impact would be on traffic throughout the region? There are a lot of destinations that just don’t have good transit access so even if you have frequent service at home you can’t get there. Likewise people have good transit access at work, but very limited service at home. If you provided good service everywhere, how many cars would that take off the road?
It is exactly the same as with roads
No, it isn’t exactly the same. It is really quite a bit different. But I don’t think it matters much. Its just an off-the-wall idea anyway.
…do what C-Tran did and retract its service boundary to the central city (Portland), and let the rest of the area deal with their own problems.
That’s actually not what C-TRAN did (I would know, I personally attended the March 2005 Public Transit Improvement Conference Meeting) – their tax boundaries are (roughly) the Vancouver UGB, and the city limits of Battle Ground, Camas, La Center, Ridgefield, Washougal, and the town of Yacolt, with defined “connecting corridors” between the unconnected cities. Add to that, C-TRAN provides quite a bit of service to Portland, which is completely outside their boundaries (they can provide service to anywhere, but they can only collect their .5% sales tax within that defined boundary).
No, that is the point. If you don’t actually know what a problem is, it is almost impossible to solve it.
If transit requires density to exist first, then the construction of transit, then:
1. Why was Interstate MAX built – when the Portland Tribune had an article in Friday’s edition discussing at length the need to redevelop Interstate Avenue? (Shouldn’t the development have come first?)
2. Why was the Portland Streetcar built while the Pearl District was still in construction stage; and why did the Streetcar extend to any point south/east of Riverplace? (Heck, there are still a lot of empty blocks down there, that’s not “dense” by anyone’s definition.)
3. There’s still a lot of empty, developable land along the westside MAX line. Under the logic that the problem must exist first before it can be solved, then clearly MAX can’t solve a problem that doesn’t exist.
The result is that the local governments have had to pursuade developers with payments and tax incentives to build along the MAX lines – clear proof that MAX isn’t there to solve a transportation problem; it requires subsidy to encourage people to live near it.
Obiviously TriMet and Metro (and the cities/counties) have decided that quality transit should be available to encourage new residents; but it seems that busses and MAX/Streetcar have separate rules. A bus can’t be extended (seemingly, under any circumstances; nor can existing bus routes be improved – since the “Frequent Service” program has been put on hold – the 76 bus was supposed to go “Frequent Service” next month but isn’t); but there’s absolutely nothing stopping the Light Rail train.
There’s absolutely NO GOOD REASON why TriMet (and Metro, being the funder of transportation in this region) can’t use busses to initate quality transit service in underserved and developing areas; clearly if a route requires more service than a bus can provide, then it would be absolutely logical to discuss Streetcar/LRT to improve service. Instead Metro seems to criticize bus riders because they aren’t living in the defined dense developments that Metro promotes (to help its developer friends), and TriMet plays along with that game by refusing to invest in the bus service. Who loses? Why, it’s Washington and Clackamas Counties – two of the three counties in the Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon.
You are talking about running buses that would pick up very few people per bus-hour. At some density level, it would just be cheaper to pay for cabs, than to run a bus every 15 minutes…
There’s a term in transit circles for this, it’s called “demand-responsive” service.
TriMet’s LIFT service is an example; so is the Cedar Mill Shuttle. Unfortunately, TriMet managed to screw up the Cedar Mill Shuttle – when it was operated under contract by Sassy’s Cab, it was a popular service (it operated pretty much throughout the day); when TriMet took over direct operations, it became a weekday rush hour service, and usage plummeted.
Only 20% of total trips taken are commute to work and back home. TriMet does a good job of ignoring the other 80%.
Why was Interstate MAX built – when the Portland Tribune had an article in Friday’s edition discussing at length the need to redevelop Interstate Avenue? (Shouldn’t the development have come first?)
The zoning for the development should have come first. Using transit to incent development is fine, but that only works when the zoning is correct. It was fine in the Pearl District (and it’s fine along MLK/Grand where the Streetcar Loop is planned).
Not doing the zoning along Interstate much sooner is a big oversight.
Using transit to incent development is fine, but that only works when the zoning is correct.
So Interstate MAX was backwards, and as a result I’m riding old busses (if they show up) that often break down because TriMet self-funded Interstate MAX (using dollars intended for bus capital projects such as replacement and bus shelters).
I had a 45 minute wait for my bus, one of TriMet’s busiest routes. How was the capacity on Interstate MAX at 6:30 PM last night? My guess was that those trains were not crammed.
“Why was Interstate MAX built”
Because the residence of N Portland voted for it several times: the political will existed to tax the people in the area to do it, In face, I personally pay property taxes towards the capital costs of that train, and I don’t mind doing so… I don’t see you offering to pay more taxes so that you can get a MAX line in your neighborhood, nor do I see a lot of indication that that is what Clackamas County is offering to do. Now, obviously it helped that the #5 bus was very crowded. TriMet wouldn’t build a MAX line just anywhere, but if most of the Hawthorne residents got together and said, “We’d like to tax ourselves to build a streetcar,” I doubt that anyone would tell them no…
“How was the capacity on Interstate MAX at 6:30 PM last night?”
While I wasn’t on it at that hour last night, it is usually standing room only at that hour on a weeknight. Exactly the same as most of the system, (MAX and bus.)
Because the residence of N Portland voted for it several times: the political will existed to tax the people in the area to do it, In face, I personally pay property taxes towards the capital costs of that train, and I don’t mind doing so… I don’t see you offering to pay more taxes so that you can get a MAX line in your neighborhood, nor do I see a lot of indication that that is what Clackamas County is offering to do.
If we are deciding to provide transit infrastructure based upon the taxes that our neighborhoods are building, then:
1. North Portland should bear the full cost of Interstate MAX, and
2. I DO pay property taxes (and my employer pays payroll tax based upon my employment/income) to TriMet; therefore since I am left to using a bus, TriMet should not use any revenue derived from me to pay for MAX but to provide and improve bus service.
Nor do I feel that MAX is appropriate for Barbur Blvd. as I have clearly indicated for numerous reasons (although I do support another alignment connecting Portland, Tigard and Tualatin that uses Barbur Blvd. north of Multnomah Blvd.)
But Clackamas County residents have paid for quality bus service for years; so under your logic that “North Portland asked for MAX” – Clackamas County residents are asking for busses. So why does TriMet get a free pass – because you hate the bus and so anyone that rides a bus is a loser?
Not doing the zoning along Interstate much sooner is a big oversight.
That’s a nice way to put it. To put it bluntly, it was a complete screw up. At least it is easily “fixable”. :)
Erik, I think you misunderstand. My employer pays payroll taxes to TriMet as well, but, in addition to that, the people of N Portland pay property taxes to pay for the capital costs of the line, (and no, we didn’t pay for all of it, the feds kicked in a bunch of money too.) That property tax doesn’t pay for the operating costs, TriMet still funds that out of their general fund, but on a per passenger basis, it is cheaper to operate MAX than buses, so this was a good deal for TriMet too. It is very unlikely that N Portland would have offered to pay property taxes towards better service for Clackamas, when Clackamas themselves wasn’t willing to do so when the N/S light rail line was on the ballot. This is an “increasing the pot,” sort of thing, not a “stealing a bigger share” sort of thing.
“because you hate the bus and so anyone that rides a bus is a loser”
After listening to this argument for months, I’m beginning to think that you projecting: that you actually hate the bus and think you are a loser. You should probably go get some therapy about that. I like MAX more than I like the bus, but that doesn’t mean that I hate the bus and I’ve never implied that at all. In fact, I ride the bus fairly regularly. However, I’m just trying to explain how the Yellow line got built.
Erik, nobody here hates buses or is anti-bus or anything like that.
(If anyone here actually does hate buses, feel free to speak up and correct me.)
My employer pays payroll taxes to TriMet as well, but, in addition to that, the people of N Portland pay property taxes to pay for the capital costs of the line, (and no, we didn’t pay for all of it, the feds kicked in a bunch of money too.)
No, I perfectly understand.
The Blue Line (both westside and eastside) were voted for by voters, by passing bonding measures that allowed TriMet to find the funds to both build and operate the line.
The Red Line was built without this approval, TriMet entered into what was widely called a “public-private” partnership whereas the private sector would take on a portion of the investment. (In reality, the private sector – Bechtel – spent very little to build MAX. Resultingly, TriMet used its own capital reserves to build this line – which meant that bus replacements had to be put on hold.)
Flush with the “success” of the Red Line, TriMet decided to do the same thing with the Yellow Line. Of course, two ballot measures to approve bonding authority for the Yellow Line also FAILED. Again – TriMet dipped into capital reserves to build it.
Unlike the Blue Line, where TriMet ALSO invested in new bus services – the Red and Yellow Line resulted in money being taken FROM the bus services. After those two lines were built, TriMet’s financial condition began to suffer – in short it had very little in the reserve account.
As a result, TriMet’s bus fleet is older; planned purchases of articulated busses were cancelled; there has been no investment in new bus routes or stops (but we got a bunch of new bus stop signs); reliability has plagued the bus network; and TriMet has had frequent fare increases. Name one other transit agency that has done all this.
Oh, and TriMet’s ridership dropped last year. When virtually every other transit agency reported record ridership.
If nobody around here “hates busses”, when who “likes busses”? Who here (other than myself) has called for TriMet to reinvest in the bus network and improve the bus system? Who here (other than myself) has called for TriMet to add capacity by buying articulated busses; has called for TriMet to show they are truly caring about the environment by buying hybrid busses; has called for TriMet to be rider-friendly by adding bus stations and shelters; and has called for TriMet to do something about schedule reliability? Who here has called for TriMet to make sure that each and every bus has air conditioning?
Please, feel free to speak up and correct me. Because I hear a lot of calls for “hey, let’s spend $40M and build a three mile Streetcar line”, but not $40M to buy 100 new busses that could be used on 20 miles of bus routes.
Why do I get the feeling that the same people complaining about the lack of bus service in Clackamas would be whining about paying for “all those empty buses” if service were expanded?
Who here (other than myself) has called for TriMet to reinvest in the bus network and improve the bus system?
I have.
Who here (other than myself) has called for TriMet to add capacity by buying articulated busses;
I’m OK with that for routes other than downtown/Transit Mall routes. I’ve previously suggested articulated and/or BRT-style buses could be useful for regional center to regional center expresses.
has called for TriMet to show they are truly caring about the environment by buying hybrid busses;
I don’t think I’ve outright called for it (it depends on the model and the route — depending on the agency and the route, the results have been mixed), but I wouldn’t be opposed to it.
has called for TriMet to be rider-friendly by adding bus stations and shelters;
I have. Not only have I done it here, I’ve written to TriMet and various private businesses to suggest partnerships for particular stops. (For example, Fred Meyer at 67th and Glisan.)
and has called for TriMet to do something about schedule reliability?
I have, but one of the things that works very well for schedule reliability is dedicated ROW, which although not exclusive to Light Rail, pretty much is a given with Light Rail projects in this region.
Who here has called for TriMet to make sure that each and every bus has air conditioning?
I don’t think each and every bus needs air conditioning, but certainly any new purchases should have it. The entire MAX system didn’t have any air conditioning at all until 10+ years after opening.
Unfortunately it seems you continue to conflate “pro rail” with “anti bus”. Other than the anti-transit cranks/trolls who show up around here, I can’t think of any regular who is opposed to more and better bus service.
Because I hear a lot of calls for “hey, let’s spend $40M and build a three mile Streetcar line”, but not $40M to buy 100 new busses that could be used on 20 miles of bus routes.
Finding $40M in capital funds for new buses wouldn’t be so hard if you didn’t have to find the $10 to $20 million PER YEAR to operate them. We need to do something to improve operating funds for all transit, especially if we want ridership growth to exceed beyond the rate of payroll growth.
– Bob R.
Because I hear a lot of calls for “hey, let’s spend $40M and build a three mile Streetcar line”, but not $40M to buy 100 new busses that could be used on 20 miles of bus routes.
Finding $40M in capital funds for new buses wouldn’t be so hard if you didn’t have to find the $10 to $20 million PER YEAR to operate them. We need to do something to improve operating funds for all transit, especially if we want ridership growth to exceed beyond the rate of payroll growth.
I think the idea was for TriMet to buy new buses and retire the 1400s and 1600s, and later the 1700s and 1800s.
I can think of one simple thing: ask transit riders, supporters, and others, to stop shopping at stores that pay low wages (we all know who they are), because those businesses do comparatively less for transit than those that pay more honest wages.
I don’t think each and every bus needs air conditioning, but certainly any new purchases should have it. The entire MAX system didn’t have any air conditioning at all until 10+ years after opening.
Well TriMet has been around since 1969, we’re going on 40 years with 1/3rd of the fleet sans-A/C.
Since 1986, MAX has been completed equipped but not the busses.
The time is now to elevate riding the bus to being a quality experience, not an “after-thought” that only poor folk and losers ride. A rider should not suffer a poor experience on transit because they ride the bus; the only difference should be the actual vehicle riden.
As for the $10/20M to operate a new bus line, the same is true for MAX. The only difference is that MAX capitalizes some of its maintenance (meaning it comes out of a different line item in the budget) but it still costs to operate and maintain MAX. I’ve already pointed out that TriMet could significantly improve its bus operating cost by A: using articulated busses (more capacity), B: using newer busses (more reliable, less breakdowns and extra calls), and C: using hybrid busses (more fuel efficient).
TriMet seems content on doing “D: None of the Above”. Finally, Clackamas County is speaking up about it, four cities (Sandy, Molalla, Canby and Wilsonville) have left the TriMet district, Tualatin has explored through its “visioning” process its own local transit service, and Portland seems content on building Streetcars on another failed path to “bringing “sustainable”, “environmental” industry to Portland” (the last attempt, a biodiesel producer, decided on Vancouver!)
I can think of one simple thing: ask transit riders, supporters, and others, to stop shopping at stores that pay low wages (we all know who they are), because those businesses do comparatively less for transit than those that pay more honest wages.
Says who?
TriMet income and property tax rates are the same; Wal-Mart doesn’t get a “TriMet Discount”. In fact, these stores probably contribute MORE towards transit ridership (because if you earn less money, it is more likely that you are transit-dependent).
My company gives out a free annual passport each year (those who drive must pay for parking, however there are a limited number of “subsidized” parking passes) – and yet transit ridership is still about 10-20%. I don’t think that the typical luxury “boutique” in the Pearl District, SoWa, Lake Oswego, Sellwood, Hawthorne, or any of Portand’s other gentrified districts do more for TriMet than Wal-Mart, Safeway, Fred Meyer, Target, Home Depot, IKEA (Portland’s favorite contridiction), Lowe’s, or any of the other big box stores do.
Matthew,
Just curious but do you really know how Interstate MAX was funded?
It wasn’t becaue because the residence of N Portland voted to tax themselves for it.
Far from it. In fact they never voted for it ever let alone to tax themselves for it.
And you had no choice in whether or not some of your property taxes were used.
There was no “offering” about it.
The I-MAX was funded without voter approval, diverted 10s of millions from basic services through an Urban Renewal scheme and has replaced
a successful bus line while not removing any measurable number of cars from our congested roads.
It is worth noting that the failed 1998 South/North MAX bond issue for funding MAX from N. Portland to Clackamas Town Center, passed in the city of Portland by almost 2-1 in favor, with only two precincts voting NO along the proposed alignment, East Kenton and Arbor Lodge. So by a great majority Portlanders favored raising property taxes to pay for the line.
Of the $300 Million Interstate URA, 10% or about $30 Million went for a portion of the local share of the Interstate MAX line. Because for the feds, the locally financed Red Line and Streetcar were combined with Interstate MAX, the federal share was in the 75% range for Interstate.
I think Bob has pretty well demonstrated that for most N. Portlanders Interstate MAX is a better deal than the old 5 Interstate bus. And with C-Trans new connections, it will get better still.
Once MAX reaches Vancouver, its full value will be realized.
“I think Bob has pretty well demonstrated that for most N. Portlanders Interstate MAX is a better deal than the old 5 Interstate bus.
>>>> And I think I pretty well demonstrated that IMAX was not needed; the #5 was doing a satisfactory job, and that enhanced service with a combination of limited and local buses for Interstate, with signal pre-emption, would have been far better than spending a third of a billion dollars for an inflexible LRT.
“And with C-Trans new connections, it will get better still.”
>>>> WHAT?! No matter what the connections, one still has to TRANSFER to get to Vancouver. With Interstate as an enhanced bus corridor, Vancouver buses could have gone all the way to downtown Portland.
You may think it is worth noting, but it appears to be nothing but spin.
As so often “noted” and implied as equal to a true vote on I-MAX that 1998 South/North MAX bond issue for funding MAX from N. Portland to Clackamas Town Center was an entirely different thing. And it included the votes of many others who would be paying for it.
Extrapilating out a segment of a vote on a failed bond measure as support for a non voted on project is not ingenuous.
You don’t know that a great majority Portlanders would have favored raising or spending existing property taxes ( as is the case)to pay for the I-MAX line.
By the time the non-voter approved UR debt for I-MAX is retired some $50 or $60 Million in what would have been basic services property taxes willhave gone to the I-MAX line.
I disagree that Bob has demonstrated at all that for most N. Portlanders Interstate MAX is a “better deal” than the old 5 Interstate bus. And N. Portlanders aren’t the only ones paying for it.
The C-Tran connections make it’s use very time consuming for the few who choose to use it and if and when MAX reaches Vancouver, its full “value” won’t help congestion one bit.
If you falsly claim it will reduce congestion then your so-called “induced demand” theory would just trigger an increase in congestion. Would it not?
So don’t try and have it both ways. Claiming that added road capacity will induce more driving then claiming rail will free up capacity but not induce any additional driving is conveluted.
Don’t put words in Lenny’s mouth, Stan, he didn’t mention congestion in the comment to which you were replying. You criticise Lenny for trying to “have it both ways” but he never mentioned anything about it. In fact, nobody mentioned it at all in this discussion until you. Talk about straw men.
– Bob R.
Once MAX reaches Vancouver, its full value will be realized.
An interesting thing here, I think, is that a huge part of Interstate MAX’s cost (the largest single cost item, as I recall), was the 3/4 mile long viaduct paralleling Denver Ave. from Argyle St. to Victory Blvd.
If the line is extended to Vancouver, this entirely grade-separated route will serve Vancouver commuters well… MAX runs at full speed here, without interruptions from traffic (or the occasional flooding which can affect the area below).
I’ve frequently criticized some aspects of MAX where compromise has led to slower service (such as in the Rose Quarter area), but this bit of infrastructure in North Portland was constructed with the future in mind, and has much room for capacity growth — and it’s already built and functioning.
– Bob R.
Bob,
Are you trying to diminish or deflect my point?
OK Lenny didn’t mention “congestion”. I think it was Ross who mentioned it on the other thread. “If commuter rail reduces the number of commuters on the road that has tremendous benefit to freight or anyone else using the road.”
I criticize he, you and the rest for your position on rail. Of course on other threads and our newspapers it has been stated and suggested that rail transit will reduce congestion by taking cars off the road. That is a long echoed claim which I believe to be false.
Also long echoed is the so-called road capacity theory “Induced Demand” which claims added road capacity will worsen congestion by luring more people to drive-by lessening their pain.
My point stands on having it both ways. Whether or not Lenny mentioned congestion in this particular thread or not.
Clearly Ross demonstrated my point by saying commuter rail would free up capacity. I don;t agree that commuter rail will but freeing up road capacity is the same as adding road capacity, in which you and yours claim induced demand will increase congestion.
All of you mention it. You are hardly “straw men”.
I go back to other threads where I have seen references to the added capacity of I-205 and the Glenn Jackson without much response.
Is it Lenny’s, Ross’s or your position that the added I-205 and Glenn Jackson were a mistake only making congestion worse? And that the region’s transportation system’s ability to serve the populous, commerce and freight mobility would be better had that capacity not been added?
I also think you embelish on that section of entirely grade-separated route which would serve Vancouver commuters. There are similar sections from Hillsboro and Gresham run at full speed without interruptions from traffic.
Vancouver commtters will be served no better and likely less than either of those two lines.
But then if you are seccessful in getting MAX across the river while obstructing any and all additional road capacity you’ll be able to make a pitch comparing C-Tran which you left stuck in traffic while claiming Vancouver MAX reduced congestion and didn’t “induce” anything!
Round we go.
“If nobody around here “hates busses”, then who “likes busses”? Who here…”
I’m sorry, but this morning as I was riding the bus into work with the other losers, (okay, 75% of my bus at that hour is hot women in business suits, but that is a topic for another time,) I was thinking about this, and quite frankly, this sounds like the “If you really loved me, you’d buy me a pony” argument. And there isn’t really a rational response to that…
I think I pretty well demonstrated that IMAX was not needed; the #5 was doing a satisfactory job
Not needed – yet. It will be needed 20+ years out. And when it is needed, it’s already there.
Claiming that added road capacity will induce more driving then claiming rail will free up capacity but not induce any additional driving is conveluted.
This is hardly convoluted, to the contrary, it is convoluted to believe otherwise. Anywhere road capacity is added you will see that congestion rises to fill the new capacity in short order. Look ANYWHERE outside of Portland for examples, toll roads included. And if those rail passengers weren’t on a train, where would they be? Oh yeah, IN THEIR CARS – OR IN A BUS – ON THE ROAD. How does putting those travelers in their own right-of-way NOT free up capacity for other drivers to clog the road? This is elementary logic, just because it does not suit your preference for traveling does not make it convoluted.
…1998 South/North MAX bond issue for funding MAX from N. Portland to Clackamas Town Center was an entirely different thing.
Yes, but ultimately the ’98 project was two phases of the existing hub & spoke system. Clackamas County doesn’t want to pay for anything (period) and Washington County was satisfied that they had their new train and didn’t care to offer more, so it was defeated. However, Portlanders (N & SE) were all very willing to fund MAX through their own neighborhoods as a way for them to get downtown – not as a way to get to the Clackamas Town Center through a part of Milwaukie that nobody wants to visit anyway (the NIMBY’s had their way on the proposed alignment). The MAX was not built out through SE Portland because the planners wanted MAX to cross the river twice to get there, and that was (and is still) a much more expensive proposition than just building I-MAX while the support for the line existed.
What is all the argument about? Why shouldn’t Clark county commuters have a choice? Drive or ride public transit that is reliable, comfortable and almost as fast as driving? Or safely bike for that matter. What’s the problem here?
The freeways are there…14 lanes of freeway across the Columbia…, but we have no local arterial connection, no high capacity transit, no decent bike facilities. Let’s have all four options and folks can choose how they want to travel. Some will drive, some won’t, whatever.
What are the “roadheads” afraid of? That we won’t get enough of that wonderful air and water pollution, won’t kill enough fish, won’t smother the view of Mt. Hood with enough smog, that we won’t burn enough Saudi oil to justify more wars, that we won’t heat up the planet fast enough for our grandkids, that we won’t over-burden a reviving N. Portland with enough cars to drive down property values? Help me out here. Spell out your strategy for destroying Portland’s pretty damn good quality of life.
And for those who choke on using Interstate MAX, fine…ride the 4 or the 6 for all your bus riding needs, but lay off the 12K riders per day who find MAX serves their needs just fine, thanks.
I think it was Ross who mentioned it on the other thread. “If commuter rail reduces the number of commuters on the road that has tremendous benefit to freight or anyone else using the road.”
I think you are misreading what I said. I think providing people with attractive alternatives to creating congestion reduces congestion. The level of congestion is set by the level people are willing to tolerate given other alternatives. The better the alternatives, the less congestion people will tolerate. That means less congestion for those who continue to drive.
no decent bike facilities
Well I guess we can rip up the bike lane on I-205 and add at least two more lanes on the Glenn Jackson Bridge, and take all that space that the bike lane occupies south towards Clackamas and add about four more lanes…
Dedicated bike lanes, near-completely separate from vehicle traffic, traffic lights where bikes and cars meet. Man, I don’t know how much more “decent” it can get.
And the Interstate Bridge even has a bike lane. On the vast, vast majority of Interstate Highways, there are no bike lanes. You sound as though bike infrastructure is completely not existant, when it’s as good as it can be, unless one wants to move to North Korea.
And for those who choke on using Interstate MAX, fine…ride the 4 or the 6 for all your bus riding needs, but lay off the 12K riders per day who find MAX serves their needs just fine, thanks.
And how about those who choke on riding the bus but have no problem riding MAX/Streetcar lay off on the 2/3rds of Portland transit riders that use the bus?
Well I guess we can rip up the bike lane on I-205 and add at least two more lanes on the Glenn Jackson Bridge, and take all that space that the bike lane occupies south towards Clackamas and add about four more lanes…
Dedicated bike lanes, near-completely separate from vehicle traffic, traffic lights where bikes and cars meet. Man, I don’t know how much more “decent” it can get.
Have you ever biked the I-205 path? Taken it into Vancouver? It’s a noisy, hot, unpleasant ride up a steep grade and not a whole lot of connectivity to much of anything at the north end.
Or how about taking the I-205 trail across Columbia Blvd, or Glisan (if you want to take your life in your hands) or Stark/Washington (safer, but very slow) or Division (no crossing light) or Foster (which should get better with MAX)? That bike path comes across as a definite afterthought, and there are a half-dozen difficult or unsafe crossings where it needs real improvement before it can be classed as a “decent” facility.
And how about those who choke on riding the bus but have no problem riding MAX/Streetcar lay off on the 2/3rds of Portland transit riders that use the bus?
Erik, can you identify anyone who rides street rail but “chokes on riding the bus” or has been critical of bus riders? Seriously … give us a name or link or a cite or something. Who, specifically, do you want to “lay off” the bus riders?
Have you ever biked the I-205 path? Taken it into Vancouver? It’s a noisy, hot, unpleasant ride up a steep grade and not a whole lot of connectivity to much of anything at the north end.
If it’s so bad, then I don’t see any reason to continue maintaining it if nobody uses it.
Since it’s so bad to build homes next to a freeway, there’s no point in building homes on that vacant land.
Since I-205 is congested, it makes sense to employ the land for more travel lanes…
Erik, can you identify anyone who rides street rail but “chokes on riding the bus” or has been critical of bus riders? Seriously … give us a name or link or a cite or something. Who, specifically, do you want to “lay off” the bus riders?
Sure, I’ll be happy to provide a full list of forum contributors who have publicly stated they refuse or strongly dislike the bus and support continued disinvestment in the mode of public transit that 2/3rds of Portland area residents use. When I get back from my day job (yes, I work, and I have a bus to catch in 10 minutes.)
As for who I want to “lay off” the bus riders:
1. Metro (for refusing to fund bus improvements, expanded bus service, and new busses)
2. TriMet (for refusing to fund bus improvements, expanded bus service, and new busses)
3. City of Portland (for building a Streetcar in competition with bus improvements).
Do I need to list indvidual Councilors and committees, or will that suffice?