As the Willamette Shoreline Transit/Trail analysis proceeds to a Locally Preferred Alignment decision in September, it’s becoming evident that the trail component is going to be a challenge.
There simply is not enough width in the right of way in some spots (tunnel, trestle, etc.) to accommodate both rail and trail. The work-arounds to this are very expensive (initial estimate on the order of $60M).
While some might argue to use the right-of-way for a trail and punt on transit (e.g., just improve bus service on 43), that’s not likely to be the outcome for a few good reasons:
- Portions of the right-of-way are not owned outright, they are easements that may lapse if rail service is not maintained.
- The right-of-way is valuable, it’s potentially worth $50-75M as match for Federal funds for a transit project (there are no equivalent programs for trail projects).
- Bus solutions in Highway 43 are going to get caught in congested traffic as the corridor sees growth in traffic over the coming decades (and the motivation for the transit project is in part the impossibility of widening the road).
So what happens to the trail? I certainly hope we don’t give up. The Daily Journal of Commerce reports on one Metro official suggesting Metro might ‘punt’.
I’m not sure that’s going to be the case. It seems pretty clear that the trail project will split from the transit project, if only because of Federal processes (the Federal Transit Administration does not fund trails). But I hope we keep the trail project alive in its own process. This is a key regional corridor, and the analysis so far suggest it will get lots of use. Since the trail will cross city and county boundaries it would seem like Metro is a likely sponsor. Let’s hope the Council doesn’t forget that as they bless the transit decision.
We’ll probably never build a $60M trail, but let’s keep the planning alive so we can keep looking for more cost-effective alternatives!
29 responses to “Who Will Carry the Torch for a Willamette Shoreline Trail?”
If a trail isn’t feasible along “the whole length” then surely Metro could fund trail segments. For example, from the Sellwood Bridge through the entire length of Powers Marine Park.
Both Riverwood Road and Fielding Road could be used as bike boulevards. I think these are both very low-traffic streets, and would require little beyond signage to become bikeways. The problem is connecting them.
A half-mile floating bikeway could bypass the tunnel if there’s a way to connect to Riverwood Road to the north and Fielding Road to the south. Of course, that would be really expensive.
I have no idea how to get from Riverwood Road to Powers Marine Park. If there’s room, graft a ten foot wide sidewalk/bikeway onto the east side of Macadam. If there isn’t room for that, I’ve got nothing.
surely Metro could fund trail segments
I think building useful segments is a very good idea.
graft a ten foot wide sidewalk/bikeway onto the east side of Macadam
I think that’s one of the flaws in the current analysis, which is that if you touch 43, you have to bring it up to full ODOT standards. That’s nuts :-)
Now that it appears that the trail is no longer wagging the dog, perhaps we can expand our vision a bit and look at running a trail (described South to North) as follows: from Lake Oswego, cross the Willamette attached to the Portland & Western Railroad Bridge, continue along the railroad right-of-way to the south end of Milwaukie, then follow the old Portland Traction right-of-way through Milwaukie (already planned as a trail) then connect somehow (along River Road?) to the Springwater Corridor, then back across the Sellwood Bridge on whatever facility gets built there to the West Side again, then North.
This misses some scenic areas, but serves the major bicycle catchment area well, and adds a new link across the river at Lake Oswego.
I would bet that Portland & Western would grant an easement for a lot less than $60 million.
What do folks think of this idea?
“It seems pretty clear that the trail project will split from the transit project, if only because of Federal processes (the Federal Transit Administration does not fund trails).”
***
I did a quick search on google here is what I found. Seems like Air Quality, Transportation Demand, Safe Routes to Schools, Recreation trails, Metropolitan and State level planning all make the project eligilble for FHWA and FTA funding…unless I am totally missing something.
FHWA and FTA Funds That May be Used for Bicycle and Pedestrian Activities
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/bkepedtble.htm
Also, It sure seems like there might be some public support for a trail. Some of those trial meeting were crowdere with supporters. What do the commitee members and public attendees of the LOPAC process have to say about the down, set, hike, Punt.
I think that’s one of the flaws in the current analysis, which is that if you touch 43, you have to bring it up to full ODOT standards.
Is that the law? Or is just an assumption being made by planners?
Does anyone know how wide 43 is between Riverwood Road and Radcliffe Road? How wide the lanes, how wide the shoulders? Is there room to skinny down the west shoulder to make room for an effective two-way bikeway on the east shoulder? The satellite map on Google Maps shows a three-lane road; two southbound, one northbound. On the other hand, the shoulders look pretty wide from the aerial photo. There may be space to play with.
And would the terrain in Powers Marine Park accommodate a bicycle path from the north to south end?
There isn’t a bike trail alongside the rail corridor now. There’s hardly a walking trail in many places.
I like the idea of a pedestrian crossing attached to the rail bridge between LO and Milwaukie. That would be something.
Trail shmail, this is a RR right-of-way, and should remain so. Would like to see it become a high speed rail line, a fast way from LO to the city, but will not happen..
Seems like Air Quality, Transportation Demand, Safe Routes to Schools, Recreation trails, Metropolitan and State level planning all make the project eligilble for FHWA and FTA funding…unless I am totally missing something.
Quite right, I should have been more specific. The Small Starts or New Starts program that we are likely to apply for for the transit piece does not fund trails. The current planning work has been done under some of the programs you’re referencing, but the next step for transit will probably use mode-specific funds, thus the need to find a new home for the trail planning.
Dick,
Any semi-competent cyclist can cover the distance from Lake Oswego to Downtown in about 1/2 hour, assuming they don’t take the curcuitous route up past Lewis and Clark College. While that’s not on par with ‘high speed rail’ (which isn’t on the table anyway), it is on par with the expected streetcar travel times. The trail can and will be at least as valid a transportation option as the streetcar, and should not be dismissed so quickly.
Is that the law? Or is just an assumption being made by planners?
It’s the way the planners read the law :-)
I’m not sure if there as an alternative reading, but certainly laws that don’t make sense can be changed.
“Any semi-competent cyclist can cover the distance from Lake Oswego to Downtown in about 1/2 hour, assuming they don’t take the curcuitous route up past Lewis and Clark College. While that’s not on par with ‘high speed rail’ (which isn’t on the table anyway), it is on par with the expected streetcar travel times. The trail can and will be at least as valid a transportation option as the streetcar, and should not be dismissed so quickly.”
Not only would cycling the trail be quicker or equal to driving/streetcar/BRT, estimates indicate that there is a 4,000 rider latent demand for this trail. If the trail were built tomorrow there would be 4,000 drivers per day off of Hwy 43.
I wouldn’t be so fast to give up on the trail, even *IF* the only workable solution costs $60 million.
Remember, the City of Portland spent well over $120 million to build the Eastbank Esplanade. If it costs $60 million to make a bicycle/ped connection between South Waterfront and Lake Oswego, *but* it proves to be just as popular as the Eastbank Esplanade — why not do it? Get Lake Oswego and the City of Portland to pitch in, along with Metro and the Feds… and pretty soon you’ve got a workable project.
As Blank mentioned, there are federal funds available for such projects… but I think the locals could probably be convinced to fund it.
The real question is, which local leader is willing to invest their political capital to make it happen?
Sam Adams?
Tom Potter?
The Mayor of Lake Oswego?
How about a catamaran ferry instead of a bicycle trail? Being a boater I have been thinking seriously about catamaran and pontoon hulls lately. I could see a vessel with two long pontoons, with two rows of seats in each one, each with a large electric motor for propulsion, powered by rechargeable batteries and a bio-diesel generator. Pontoons are a very fuel efficient design.
Such a vessel might carry sixty people. It would also be fast and relatively wake free. The generator could provide 110 volt power for various uses. There already are several docks along the river in handy locations for commuting.
If the trail were built tomorrow there would be 4,000 drivers per day off of Hwy 43.
Are you 100% sure that everyone who would ride a bike through the area currently drives a car along the same stretch of SR 43? Anyone currently cycling through the area? Is there any way of knowing how many currently take the TriMet 35 or 36 through the area, simply avoid the area as a whole (i.e., go all the way out to Boones Fy. or the Baldock), or even is on the ‘oh yeah, I’m gonna say I’d use it to make sure it gets built’ bandwagon?
A couple of unrelated replies:
Remember, the City of Portland spent well over $120 million to build the Eastbank Esplanade.
I believe it was $30 million, including the $10 million to add the pedestrian/bike walkway to the Steel Bridge.
How about a catamaran ferry instead of a bicycle trail?
Although that might be quite interesting, it would necessitate an operator and maintenance. If that is the case, there is already a suggestion on the table to build the trail as far as possible, and then provide free streetcar rides for just one stop to bridge the gap (mainly the tunnel).
– Bob R.
There already are several docks along the river in handy locations for commuting.
The idea of using the river has been studied several times and each time it gets thrown out. As I understand it, the problem is that the docks aren’t really in handy locations for commuting. There are actually very few jobs all that close to a dock along the river. Even in downtown Portland, only a very small portion would be within 1/2 mile of any dock location you might choose. And at the other end, there aren’t all that many residences nearby so you have to provide parking structures so people can drive to the boats.
Huh. Really? I was under the impression that the entire Eastbank Esplanade project was closer to $130 million.
Maybe it’s due to typos like these:
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-10185932_ITM
”
COST: Esplanade: $20 million; Steel Bridge section, $1 10 million ”
That looks a lot like $20 million + $110 million = $130 million…
…but I could see how maybe there’s an extra space and a 1 in there that shouldn’t be.
Regardless, what about the rest of the concept — that $60 million isn’t necessarily too much, if that’s what it takes to provide bicycle/pedestrian access in that stretch?
All it takes is a political champion, which, I believe, was also the point of the original post here. The question is — who?
Yeah, I think that’s a typo all right. :-) I’ve found a few other docs which correspond with the $30 million total. (Google: Eastbank Esplanade Cost and a few come up.)
– Bob R.
If the entire eastbank esplanade cost $20 million, that suggests a floating bikeway past the tunnel shouldn’t be too expensive. If we don’t insist on a trail the entire way, but a combination of trail and low-traffic streets, there’s potential for a fairly safe bike ride from Lake Oswego to Waterfront Park.
djk –
What I’ve been told about the problem with a floating walkway is that there is a big problem with falling rocks (so the walkway would have to be very protected and spaced far out into the water) and that the elevation change at that point would be rather drastic between the rail-side trail and the water at either end of the walkway. Not impossible, for sure, but potentially more expensive than just drilling a secondary pedestrian/bike tunnel.
The actual floating part of the esplanade is about a quarter mile, and as I recall the really difficult portion for the trail would be about a mile long.
– Bob R.
I think that’s one of the flaws in the current analysis, which is that if you touch 43, you have to bring it up to full ODOT standards. That’s nuts :-)
Actually that’s not entirely true with a caveat:
If the road continues to be an ODOT maintained highway, then yes – any road construction must include bringing the road up to ODOT standards – including adequate signage, signalling, shoulders, barricades, etc.
However, if Multnomah/Clackamas Counties (or Clackamas County and the City of Portland) were to take Highway 43 into local jurisdiction, then it could then maintain the road to its own standards.
For example, Interstate Avenue was once part of Oreogn Highway 1W/Route 99W. Today it is not, the City of Portland took it over, which permitted the construction of Interstate MAX. Sandy Blvd. was once part of U.S. 30 Business until about a year or two ago when it went into the city street system. Oregon Highway 10 (Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway) is a Portland street from the city limits to Barbur Blvd. (which is still a state highway). In fact the upper deck of the Steel Bridge is still a state highway but the road on either side of it has reverted to city ownership (this is because the state leased the deck from UP under a 99 year lease). Front Avenue/Naito Parkway is a state highway south of Clay Street, but a city street north. And M.L.K. Blvd. is a state highway north of milepost -3.75 (Northeast Portland Highway) and south of milepost 1.00, but inbetween is now a city street (milepost 0.00 is Burnside).
…You are correct. Funding would be through small starts. However, FTA has only a vague idea what they are doing with small starts…it is brand new. Part of the concept is to help fund lower cost project like BRT and Streetcar. To NOT have a multi-modal compliments to the alternatives in a Corridor (such as a major trail in this case)…especially with the Esplanade, and Springwater Corridor being such sucesses, would be a colossal blunder on the planners part. And to not think that rails WITH trails wont impact VMT in a place like Portland, in a corridor with massive latent demand in a huge biking community…come on. I don’t think that the trail planning needs to find a new funding source or jurisdictional leader. FTA and FHWA need to evolve. Metro needs to go for it on forth down…no punting.
I also think the project could find finding though the other FTA programs noted previously.
But it certainly needs a Champion
Yup. LO Mayor loves the streetcar. Would loving trail help get more attention…Streetcar people seem to be focused on the central city and SWF. Sam Adams seems to like streetcar…he could step-up.
…You are correct. Funding would be through small starts.
Actually there’s a case to be made for using New Starts, which is the program usually used for LRT. The LO line, unlike the central city lines, would offer enough travel time savings to potentially compete well under New Starts, and the available funding is larger.
The east bank esplanade was 130 million? Are you sh#$(*%& me? How the hell can an even remotely competant person spend that kind of money on a walkway?
Anyway, that’s not what I was going to comment on but it just amazes me. If I blew budgets like that in the private sector I’d never work again and have to I suspect go work for the Government. Ugh.
As for the trail, something reasonable HAS to be available. I’ll use a little bit of private sector ingenuity and probably find a much less expensive way to get it done…
…but then of course as long as the transit is going to go forward…
…I have more important things to do. But needless to say, the trail idea is something that sounds interesting, even if in segments.
The east bank esplanade was 130 million? Are you sh#$(*%& me? How the hell can an even remotely competant person spend that kind of money on a walkway?
Relax, Adron, it was $30 million, not $130. I’ve checked with multiple sources. That includes the floating walkways, docks, and the platform attached to the Steel Bridge. Even Jack Bog’s blog seemed to think it was a good idea.
– Bob R.
The only problem with the Esplanade is that it stops at the Steel Bridge instead of the St Johns.
Go to http://www.npGreenway.org to see north Portland’s vision for the Greenway Trail down the east side of the Willamette to St Johns and beyond.
As a follow-up, I noticed today over on the Urban Planning Overlord blog (great name) that the Oregonian recently published an editorial embracing the Eastbank Esplanade and apologizing for being wrong about the project in past editorials, as well as praising the idea of a Sullivan’s Gulch trail. The editorial also listed the Esplanade price tag at $30 million.
– Bob R.
Since a trolley is already being run on the Westshore route can Dunthorpe object if more cars are added? Perhaps right of use has already been legally established. This trolley has been running for over a decade now so the use is well established.
I don’y know why the diesel power units could not run on biodiesel. Does anyone? So, buy more old trolleys, and diesel power units, get a supply of biodiesel and start a service. Even if it only three or four trips during each peak travel time it would be a great serivce with relatively low cost and would reduce rush hour traffic. The track is already there; biodiesel would be a hit. Old trolley cars are cheap.
Isn’t the max speed on that trolley line only like 15 mph? Have you seen the tracks? They’re so bent that they look like spaghetti noodles!