CRC Design Updates


From the latest Columbia River Crossing e-newsletter:

What’s happening: CRC design updates

  • Upstream bridge alignment removed from further study

    After careful study, the CRC project is removing the upstream alignment from additional active study because of its significant impacts to Fort Vancouver and its lengthier construction time compared to the other bridge alternatives. The upstream bridge alignment will still be discussed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

  • Downtown transit options refined

    The CRC project has removed the Washington-Main couplet and Washington-Columbia couplet options from the transit alignment choices for downtown Vancouver. Both had negative impacts on traffic circulation in downtown Vancouver. The project is still considering Washington-Broadway and Washington two-way transit alignments for downtown Vancouver south of 16th Street/McLoughlin Boulevard.

  • Lincoln park and ride spaces reduced

    Thanks to input from neighborhood residents and community members, and findings from technical analysis, the maximum number of parking spaces for the Lincoln park and ride has been reduced from 2,400 to 1,800. Project staff consider four primary objectives as they develop the number of parking spaces: maximum number of riders, large unmet demand for high capacity transit, traffic and community impacts, and neighborhood access. Design will continue to be refined as the project moves forward. The Lincoln park and ride would be located at the current site of a WSDOT maintenance facility at 39th and Main. It would provide parking for high capacity transit riders of the Main/Broadway transit alignment north of downtown.


96 responses to “CRC Design Updates”

  1. I was born and raised in Portland and now live in Clark county.

    I drive to work in downtown Portland every day.

    I really, really, really hope that the bridge can be replaced at some point before I retire in 20 years. I moved to Clark County in 2003 and I have noticed that the morning commute has gotten worse over the last year or two. I used to work off Kruse Way in LO and I could leave my house in Salmon Creek at 8:30 am and make it to work by 9:00 am. Now if I leave at 8:30, I’m lucky if I make it to downtown Portland by 9:00 am.

    I really don’t see expanding light rail to Vancouver as a viable option as the ride is just too long. For example, to ride MAX from the Expo Center to Pioneer Square takes 30 minutes. However, the Expo Center is past the nasty part of the commute. From the Jantzen Beach exit to my parking garage in downtown takes less than 15 minutes every day. Why would I ride MAX and add 30 minutes to my commute every day?

    Personally, I think that Tri-Met has blown MAX for being a fast way to get around because the trains stop way too often downtown. Why are there stops 2 blocks apart? Can’t people walk 2 blocks?

    People ride public transit for a few reasons: 1) It is cheaper than parking and paying for gas 2) It is faster than traffic 3) They don’t have access to, can’t afford, or are forbidden from (DWI, etc.) driving a car 4) They want to leave the driving to someone else 5) Altruism – cleaner planet, etc.

    Frankly, Tri-Met fails me on all but one of these counts. It’s slow; I have to sit in a train or bus with other people – thus increasing my chances of getting sick; I like driving and can listen to my own music with my own temperature selected in the car. It would be slightly cheaper to ride Tri-Met (I get free parking from my employer, so I’m only out auto costs) and I guess that I’d feel better for fighting global warming and our reliance on foreign oil, but frankly, it’s not worth spending at least an extra 30 minutes a day from my family.

    For Tri-Met to really boost ridership, they have to increase the speed of the system. If the time was the same to ride MAX versus driving, I’d probably do it (fighting global warming wins out over increasing my chances of getting a cold). Either traffic is going to have to get substantially worse or Tri-Met is going to need to speed up the trains to get my butt out of my car.

    Sorry….this post doesn’t have to do much with the CRC. Maybe it’s a “don’t worry about LRT on the CRC” post.

  2. Very well stated Stockguy. For all the things that TriMet has done well, this is the greatest challenge it faces that has not been addressed. The only people that come close to seeing RAPID transit are those that live near either Sunset or Gateway and work in downtown.

  3. Grant – I agree, especially for people that live very near (like a 5 minute walk from) Sunset or Gateway. By the time you count driving to the stop, parking your car, waiting for the train, riding the train and then walking to your final destination, MAX is not a very fast way to get around. Of course, there’s probably some overlap – the trip to the station includes some of the distance that would be driven to work, etc.

    Unless traffic will get so bad that MAX will get relatively faster or it costs $400 a month to park downtown or gas is $8 a gallon, we won’t see a compelling reason to ride MAX.

  4. It’s nice to see a non-vitriolic objection to MAX. I’d venture to say this is the majority opinion that’d be stated by most who people who don’t take the time to frequent a blog like this. The Terry Parkers and Jim Carlocks are rare in their dogmatic hate. I’m a frequent rider, and I agree: too slow. I’m generally willing to take the slower ride in exchange for not having to drive, but obviously not everyone will do so.

    Has there ever been any serious discussion of investing more into the existing alignments to increase speed? Expansion is important, but maybe similar gains in ridership can be achieved by simply making the lines we have more efficient. Has a study ever been done to identify all of the slow points on the existing lines, along with costs to improve those areas? Maybe there are some fixes that could shave minutes from a ride for minimal cost.

  5. I still think they need to be looking at a commuter train between Union Station and downtown Vancouver versus expanding the MAX across the river. If they need to put more lanes along the existing tracks, do that. I can’t imagine very many people need to get from NorthPo to downtown Vancouver, people need to get from downtown Portland to downtown Vancouver.

  6. To DR’s questions, TriMet recognizes the bottlenecks on the MAX system, namely Rose Quarter, the Steel Bridge, Gateway, and the downtown stop spacing. I think the big issue here is spending priorities. The current political will is largely to expand MAX’s coverage, with a recognition that these efficiency improvments are needed in the not-too-distant horizon. Fixing the bottlenecks will take big money, well into 9 figures. Removing stations is probably the most affordable option, but some of the big ticket items are needed to have a significant impact.

  7. Stockguy –

    Thanks for listing your reasons why MAX doesn’t work for you (but might if it were significantly improved.)

    I’ve been pushing for stop consolidation and fixing the Rose Quarter and Steel Bridge for years.

    Although those problems haven’t been addressed, I think that TriMet has been nudged a bit closer to better design.

    1. The new Transit Mall alignment, for example, has downtown stops 4 and 5 blocks apart, rather than 2 or 3.

    2. The new proposed transit bridge to SE Portland and Milwaukie should allow for full-speed operation, certainly much higher speeds than the Steel Bridge.

    3. The new I-205 Green Line alignment (thanks to the foresight of including a transitway ROW in the original I-205 design) will be almost (but not quite) entirely grade separated.

    Of course, there are problems with all of the above:

    1. Thanks to the inclusion of a full-length auto lane (based on strong support from downtown businesses), TriMet was faced with either adopting the now-famous serpentine design, or creating far narrower sidewalks and tiny mid-street island platforms which wouldn’t adequately serve riders.

    2. The new Caruthers Crossing is facing potential opposition due to cost (surprise, dedicated full-speed ROW costs money) and the final bridge location (which may include a stop within the South Waterfront district) may result in a longer total trip time. Some groups oppose taking the Milwaukie route across the river at all, favoring a pure east-side alignment (which would run N-S faster but would require transfers to downtown.)

    3. The new stations along I-205 will require a bit of walking from the various cross streets or destinations, making transfers (and at least initially most riders will be transferring somewhere) more of a chore.

    Unit –

    Can you shed more light on what TriMet would be inclined to do, given the resources, to address the items you listed?

    – Bob R.

  8. I too, appreciate reading some thoughtful and constructive comments that are actually aimed at improving the situation. How refreshing!

    I thought this column in today’s Seattle Times was timely. http://tinyurl.com/33bcb9. He gives MAX good marks overall, but does mention the slowness of the system though downtown. I agree with that assessment. At least one and maybe two stations downtown could be removed and would help matters greatly. Or maybe have a few express trains during rush hour that only stop at Pioneer Square and a couple other selected stops (say, 10th to connect to the Streetcar)? But then there would have to be a way for the express trains to pass the locals, so that’s not an easy solution.

    But, despite it’s shortcomings, it’s worth the continued investment. Let’s work on improving it!

    I would be in favor

  9. Perhaps this is further stating the obvious, but using the resources currently at Trimet’s disposal to improve existing lines, as opposed to continual expansion, would drastically increase the political will for future expansion. Instead of comments like stockmans: ‘that things slow, I don’t want my tax dollars to pay to bring it near me,’ we’d have more people interested in bringing it to their own section of town. Consequently, we’d also have more people willing to accept the necessary funding measures to do so.

  10. I think the only viable long-term solution is grade separation downtown. But a subway would be 10 figures, not 9, and elevated trains tend to be unsightly. The only place I have seen an el that works is Chicago, mainly because it so much a part of the civic identity.

  11. So it looks like they are going to take out part of the Jantzen Beach Center instead? That seems like a good way to reduce the traffic on the bridge…

  12. With all due respect, to move to Clark county when one’s employment is in Kruse Way is sort of asking for it. A choice was made to get a lower cost/sq. foot in return for a longer commute, etc. Public policy should hardly be driven by such choices, especially when they come at the expense of everyone who, I believe, has made a better choice…i.e. to remain, invest, live in N. Portland neighborhoods, which are only now recovering of 40 years of the “freeway flu.”

  13. I think the only viable long-term solution is grade separation downtown.

    That my be right, but I think they also ought to consider bypassing downtown for most trains and using the streetcar and/or local Max runs to connect to the city center. The existing Max line from Goose Hollow to Lloyd Center might actually work well as a local.

    I think it is important to remember that most trips from Clark County do not go downtown at all, in fact they go just across the river. MAX provides a lot of connections to places in between and its not realistic for it to be faster than an auto to downtown and still serve all those other areas. Some people will still drive, the question is how many people can be well-served and what is needed to get them to use MAX.

  14. A subway from Rose Quarter to downtown would do a lot to relieve what ails MAX through the midsection of the city. It would introduce a high speed river crossing, reduce three or four stops by combining stops (Rose Quarter and Convention Center, Old Town and Skidmore Fountain, 1st and 3rd, 5th and Pioneer Square), and avoid downtown traffic stoplights at least until I-405, if not until Civic Stadium or Goose Hollow.

    It makes the most sense from a transit point of view, would also return portions of the road to downtown drivers, and potentially add on-street parking for businesses. It would also, however, be hugely expensive, and duplicate service we already have (even if it did end up making the trip much faster and more competitive with a trip via car). I can’t imagine this would get built before the Milwaukie line, an extension to Vancouver, a line down Foster, and possibly a line down Barbur gets built.

    Even if some or all of that gets built I just don’t know if there’s going to be the will to spend the money to do this, and without a subway I don’t see MAX ever getting much faster through downtown than it is today.

  15. If they do go underground I would like to see a walking corridor beside it – and shops all along the way, too.

  16. From day one I have rolled my eyes about the MAX stops at Goose Hollow (the MAC stop), Pioneer Place and the Convention Center. All are two blocks from other, more central and busier stations. There is 3 minutes faster service right there.
    Next is the Steel Bridge…how to get from 10 mph to 20 mph…there should be a way to double train speed across that bridge.
    Last, signal pre-emption on Yamhill/Morrison…I don’t know how many times I have seen trains sitting at lights between 10th Avenue and 18th Avenue…waiting for the light.
    Now we have shortened the trip from Lloyd Center to Goose Hollow (Jefferson) by five minutes without too much pain and suffering.

  17. I agree with Lenny that the top two bottlenecks are the station spacing and the Steel Bridge. Increasing station spacing is a good bang for the buck – it might cost in the range of $1M to close a station, and would knock a minute or so off the trip. Close enough stations – say Lenny’s suggestions plus 1st&Oak and Old Town/Chinatown – and we may end up needing one or two fewer trains at a given time. That would produce a small savings in capital and operating costs, and could pay off over time. What is really needed here is city or downtown leadership, since they would be the interests most likely to oppose the loss of these stations.

    The Steel Bridge is ailing and in need of a big investment – for all modes. This could be a $100M problem to realistically address. The fact that it is owned by the railroad seems to make it harder, as the Broadway, Burnside, soon the Sellwood are improved, the Steel continues to deteriorate. I think TriMet would participate in capital improvements, but this bridge is really a larger responsibility, also serving SOVs, Amtrak, freight, bikes and peds. Perhaps we could use this as an opportunity to placate Terry by charging $100 tolls to bikers and letting everyone else on free.

    The Rose Quarter ideas posted on this site are probably realistic possibilities when this is ultimately addressed. Of course, the downtown subway idea solves all these problems (other than Gateway) with a single project, but could be a $6-10B gorilla.

  18. Unit –

    djk has proposed ideas here a couple of times for how a short downtown subway (paralleling or using Morrison/Yamhill) for about 10 blocks, combined with strategic station consolidation, and also (as a concurrent or separate project) modifications for longer platforms/trains could dramatically increase capacity and reduce travel times, without the need for a massive subway project.

    I hope to do a full Portland Transport post, with pretty maps and everything :-) based on my own riffs on djk’s ideas in the near future.

    – Bob R.

  19. Bob R.: Does it make sense to do the downtown subway w/o a tunnel crossing the Willamette? Does the piece that goes over to the Rose Quarter really increase the cost of the project enough to make it not viable (keeping in mind that if we don’t create a subway across the river we’re going to have to spend some amount of money to rehab the Steel Bridge)?

  20. “Curiouser and curiouse” said Alice”…

    I bumped in to a member of the Columbia River Crossing Task Force yesterday at the Port of Vancouver, and he was as suprized to find out about this release of information from the “Task Force” as I was, since the “Task Force” has never met to discuss or vote to approve any of it. He was amazed to read in the Sunday columbian that the “Task Force” had decided to eliminate the up-river crossing all together, and was also amazed that financial information would not be released until February 1st. This e-mail from Danielle Cogan didn’t clarify matters either.

    If the acutal Task Force members are not making these kinds of decisions, then exactly who is?

    If the Columbia River Crossing project staff has financial figures to release, why the teaser? Is that just a ploy to try and jack up attendance at the Open Houses where they will present the same old thing??

    Sorry, but this whole process has not passed the smell test from the very beginning, and it smells even worse from over here in America’s The ‘Couv right now. If the real Task Force members are unaware of who is making these kinds of decisions, then we have a problem that needs to be addressed right now.

  21. “Curiouser and curiouse” said Alice”…

    I bumped in to a member of the Columbia River Crossing Task Force yesterday at the Port of Vancouver, and he was as suprized to find out about this release of information from the “Task Force” as I was, since the “Task Force” has never met to discuss or vote to approve any of it. He was amazed to read in the Sunday columbian that the “Task Force” had decided to eliminate the up-river crossing all together, and was also amazed that financial information would not be released until February 1st. This e-mail from Danielle Cogan didn’t clarify matters either.

    If the acutal Task Force members are not making these kinds of decisions, then exactly who is?

    If the Columbia River Crossing project staff has financial figures to release, why the teaser? Is that just a ploy to try and jack up attendance at the Open Houses where they will present the same old thing??

    Sorry, but this whole process has not passed the smell test from the very beginning, and it smells even worse from over here in America’s The ‘Couv right now. If the real Task Force members are unaware of who is making these kinds of decisions, then we have a problem that needs to be addressed right now.

  22. Doug –

    The price of improving the Steel bridge will be an important factor in making any decision about a subway.

    But if the bridge can be upgraded at a fair price to a minimum set of standards (say 3 or 4 tracks, genuine 20mph+ operating speeds) for a few hundred million less than the price of tunnelling under the river (or building a new replacement bridge altogether), you could conceivably wind up with a project that provides 75% or more of the speed and capacity improvements of a full subway, at less than half the cost.

    If done right, none of it would preclude a future full subway (for example, by including stubs in the tunnel sections to allow linking up with a future subway on 2nd or 3rd aves. without requiring the shutdown of the 1st ave. surface line or the new Morrison/Yamhill (or nearby) subway.

    – Bob R.

  23. Over on the Carruthers crossing thread, I’ve been strongly advocating opening the “transit and bike only” bridge to private cars on a toll basis, primarily as a way of raising money to help pay for the bridge.

    I’m going to take the opposite position on the Steel Bridge. Close it to cars. It isn’t a particularly important link in the automobile grid, and both the Broadway and Burnside Bridges are good nearby alternatives. Add two more rail lines, and all four MAX lines can use the Steel Bridge without creating a bottleneck. Use the outside lanes to carry buses and emergency vehicles as well.

    I consider the Steel Bridge to be the best candidate for Portland’s “car-free bike and transit” bridge.

    Bob R. — looking forward to seeing your version of the “short subway” concept. Especially if there are pretty maps involved.

  24. If the acutal Task Force members are not making these kinds of decisions, then exactly who is?

    The task force is an advisory group. The project is being run by WashDOT and ODOT. They chose the task force members and consultants.

  25. I think Portland is a long way from the point where a subway, no matter how short, is going to rise to the top of regional priorities. Even the tunnel under the Willamette for I5 is probably ahead of it.

  26. Just to add a fresh anecdote: We were traveling across the Steel Bridge eastbound today at 5:04pm and a MAX train was genuinely stalled by automobile traffic. Despite MAX’s slow operating speed on the bridge, it twice caught up to even slower autos and had to make a full stop, the 2nd time for over 30 seconds.

    This lends support to the idea that a number of simple, low-cost changes to MAX (eliminating lane sharing with autos, combining redundant stops) could help the present-day situation well before we ever break ground on a major subway project.

    – Bob R.

  27. I keep sending comments about exactly these things to TriMet; somebody sends me an email saying that its been directed to a MAX planner but so far I’ve never gotten a single response back.

  28. Since the Burnside bridge has been closed, MAX is regularly stalled in traffic on the Steel during rush hour. This should end Friday when Burnside re-opens, hopefully for good.

    I agree with djk that Steel is a better no-car bridge than Caruthers, simply because it carries so many MAX (and bus) lines, but it will still require boatloads of $$$ to get the seismic retrofits, structural rehab, and higher operating speeds that it needs.

  29. Why is it that when someone is “wrong” with MAX, that there has to be a grand scheme to fix it right away…

    But when something is wrong with the bus system, it’s shoved underneath the rug and/or made to be a non-issue?

    When MAX trains consistently run 10 to 20 minutes late, and are bunched three blue line trains in a row, call me. Oh, wait, that’s what I put up with every day on the 12-Barbur. When a MAX passenger is forced to stand in a rainpour with absolutely no shelter nearby (at 3/4s of the stations), call me. When a MAX stop schedule sign has a one year old outdated schedule still posted, call me. When MAX trains don’t have air conditioning, call me. When Transit Tracker signs are completely removed, call me. Until then, MAX DOESN’T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS.

  30. I’m pleased to see some civilized debate on the issue of MAX. One rarely convinces someone else by resorting to name-calling and sarcasm, so it’s nice to see some intelligent conversation.

    Yep, I bought my house in Salmon Creek with a job in LO. In 2003 it took a half hour to get to work and about 40 minutes to get home. It’s now 2007, I work in downtown Portland and it takes a half hour to get to downtown and about 45 minutes to get home.

    I did save a pile of money on my home by buying in Clark County. Actually, it’s more like I was able to buy a bigger house that has more amenities in a nicer neighborhood for the same amount of money (I got more utility). Plus, my wife works in WA, so we don’t pay income tax on her income. Also, my property taxes are less. However, I basically traded money for time because when I bought my house my commute was a lot worse than to N. or NE Portland (I spent less, but gave up time). I am surprised at how quickly the traffic has gotten worse. I originally rode C-Tran’s express bus to my downtown job, but that would take over an hour each way, door to door and I am probably giving myself an extra hour in my day by driving (plus I can sing along with KGON without embarrassment).

    To go back to my original post: I agree with many of the posters here that MAX isn’t evil or the worst thing that ever happened to Portland. Basically, Tri-Met is offering a service – transportation that doesn’t seem to offer a good value to me. It seems like a lot of us agree that Tri-Met isn’t operating MAX in a manner that will attract more riders.

    DR hit it right on the head – People like me see MAX being operated the way it is now and we don’t see what it offers for us so we don’t support expansion. We see: Too many stops slowing down service, no express lines that make infrequent stops and haul along at 55 mph, the lack of going through a turnstile to board the system, thus reducing security and allowing drunks, gang members and drug dealers to board trains at their whims. Tri-Met isn’t offering a product that appeals to me, or probably more accurately – their product isn’t a good substitution for driving myself. So guys like me think “Why pay for MAX on the CRC if I’m not going to ride it because it doesn’t meet my needs – a fast trip to work?”

    I’m not sure what the answer is. I’m definitely not anti-transit. If someone built a system that guaranteed a 20 minute trip from the ‘burbs to downtown Portland, I’d ride it. When I have to stop every mile along Interstate, the Rose Quarter and every two blocks downtown, I think “Why bother?”

    I guess that one answer is what some people have suggested – removing some stops in the system and dedicating lanes on the Steel Bridge to speed up transit times.

    It’s disheartening to read that people have made these suggestions to Tri-Met to just get a form e-mail reply that their message was passed on and then we don’t see any change happen. It feels like “Tri-Met: Our new motto – Talk to the hand!” and so my neighbors see MAX with a big yawn and a “I’m not going to pay the tax and fare for a 50 minute trip to Portland”.

    Maybe Tri-Met will listen to its customers one day and see the light, but I think that it’ll take a while.

    Again, thanks for the intelligent discourse!

  31. Stockguy,

    Interesting perspective- I appreciate you weighing in. I think that lots of people (including me) constantly balance the time/money issue. My question for you is, is there any point at which you would consider an alternative (no transport) solution? Which is to say, that the easiest way to resolve to resolve your time problem would be to move closer to work. Is that an option? Would it ever become an option and if so, at what point?

  32. Then why the heck did Trimet decide to save only a million or so to remove the west-side ramp for the MAX on the steel bridge? I have heard that it will add ~3-4 minutes on transit times – talk about a cost-effective way to save money as compared to overall costs!

    Trimet is building in its own irrelevancy.

  33. Zilfondel –

    I’m completely opposed to the removal of the ramp from the project… I posted an entry about it here.

    TriMet’s estimate is that, on average, it will increase the journey by 16 seconds each way. I think it will be higher due to the extra traffic signal the train will pass through, problems with cross traffic, etc, but by much.

    It is unfortunately another one of those places where, in order to make the budget work, accommodations for transit operations are compromised.

    The project has been compromised (in my opinion) in several areas where we will just wind up paying to improve things later:

    1. The aforementioned ramp removal.
    2. The overall number of light rail cars has been reduced from the original proposal, so if ridership grows faster than predicted, crowding will result.
    3. The overall amount of shelter space available to waiting transit patrons on the transit mall is significantly reduced, by 40% or more. (The old shelters were destroyed in the name of maintenance cost savings and at the insistence of many downtown businesses)
    4. The reduction in total number of ticket vending machines from the project (some stations perceived to be purely drop-off stations will have none.)
    5. The possible lack of inclusion of any Transit Tracker displays.

    People have a number of opinions about these compromises, but in a strange way at least it shows that TriMet isn’t always looking for more opportunities to inflate the budget on these projects.

    – Bob R.

  34. So guys like me think “Why pay for MAX on the CRC if I’m not going to ride it because it doesn’t meet my needs – a fast trip to work?”

    The answer is because it will meet the needs of many people who would otherwise join you in creating congestion on I5. And the more attractive the alternative, the less congestion people will tolerate before they use it.

    he lack of going through a turnstile to board the system, thus reducing security and allowing drunks, gang members and drug dealers to board trains at their whims.

    Last I looked it wasn’t against the law for gang members and drug dealers to use transit. And drunks are allowed on the road “at whim” where they are far more dangerous than on MAX.

    plus I can sing along with KGON without embarrassment

    I think this is the same issue as the “gang members and drug dealers”. Some people will pay a very high price for their private space. There is no transit that will get them out of their cars. But given that the Portland street network is at the limit of the number of vehicles it can absorb from Clark County, the luxury of using one vehicle for each person is going to get more expensive in both time and money.

  35. It’s disheartening to read that people have made these suggestions to Tri-Met to just get a form e-mail reply that their message was passed on and then we don’t see any change happen.

    I don’t know why that is disheartening. The fact is these problems have been identified by Tri-Met for years. There are reasons they haven’t been fixed.

  36. Here’s my responses to Ross Williams (sorry, I can’t figure our how to do italics):

    Ross Wrote: The answer is because it will meet the needs of many people who would otherwise join you in creating congestion on I5. And the more attractive the alternative, the less congestion people will tolerate before they use it.

    My point is that ridership from Clark County won’t be very high. If I think that I don’t want to ride MAX because it will take too long to get to downtown Portland, there are hundreds if not thousands of other commuters that are thinking the same thing. Plus, most commuters from Clark County aren’t driving to downtown Portland. Once you include the time to transfer to another bus or MAX line, the time involved for the commute will be well over 1 hour. That’s a tough sell to somebody. If Tri-Met could guarantee a 20 minute trip to downtown, people would ride MAX from Clark County.

    Ross Wrote: Last I looked it wasn’t against the law for gang members and drug dealers to use transit. And drunks are allowed on the road “at whim” where they are far more dangerous than on MAX.

    My point is that without having to travel through a turnstile “undesirable” elements can ride MAX with impunity because they don’t pay the fare. When NYC began cracking down on turnstile jumpers a few years ago there was a significant drop in crime on the subway system. Also, by drunks on MAX – I have had homeless drunk people fall on me because they can’t stand up. These people would not be riding the system if they had to pay a fare. I’m not talking about people riding home on New Year’s Eve. I’m talking about riding at 5:00 pm and having a guy who hasn’t bathed in a long time looking like he’s ready to vomit on you and then fall on your lap. If Tri-Met installed a turnstile that required a ticket, the odds that guy is going to actually pay the $2 to board the train drop and the rest of us can ride MAX with a little more peace. I’m certain that if a fare was required to board that the number of drug runners using MAX would decline – they won’t want to pay the fare.

    Ross Wrote: I think this is the same issue as the “gang members and drug dealers”. Some people will pay a very high price for their private space. There is no transit that will get them out of their cars. But given that the Portland street network is at the limit of the number of vehicles it can absorb from Clark County, the luxury of using one vehicle for each person is going to get more expensive in both time and money.

    The Portland street network isn’t anywhere close to absorbing the number of Clark County commuters. The I-5 bridge has reached saturation, but coming into town, traffic moves quite well after the 2-lane bottleneck at Columbia. Going home, on-ramps are backed up in the north part of I-5, but adding more lanes to the bridge (and hopefully to I-5 near the bridge) would remove the problem.

    As far as cost and time: Maybe the cost will rise if tolls are imposed to cross the bridge. That’s fine with me – those who use the bridge pay for it and those who don’t use it don’t pay for it.

    Ross Wrote: I don’t know why that is disheartening. The fact is these problems have been identified by Tri-Met for years. There are reasons they haven’t been fixed.

    This is my exact point of why it’s disheartening. Someone tells Tri-Met: “Hey, I am your customer and this a change you can make to keep me as your customer and keep me happy”. Tri-Met replies: “Thank you for your input” and doesn’t give any feedback on why the system is the way it is or why steps haven’t been taken to improve or why the system can’t be improved. That’s terrible customer service. Why offer a method of giving feedback if they won’t even reply to somebody? That’s just rude and it doesn’t build any goodwill with the community. Getting a form letter is very disheartening. The least Tri-Met can do is reply “Sorry, but we can’t implement your solution because…..”

  37. My reply to Hawthorne:

    I think that you’re asking me what the tipping point is for when my commute becomes too long and I pack up and move closer to downtown Portland.

    My answer: I’m not sure. I was thinking about this and I realize that on the high end, 2 hours each way could cause me to do it. An hour in the car each way probably wouldn’t cause me to move for a couple of reasons: Portland is so expensive now for housing that if I sold my house in Clark County and bought a place in Portland, it probably wouldn’t be in an area with very good schools, which concerns me. Also, I’d have to shell out tens of thousands of dollars in agent commissions, excise taxes and expenses if I were to move. Plus, any house I buy in Portland will be smaller than the house I have now due to Portland’s higher prices. I’m not complaining…I know that Vancouver’s cheaper and the commute is worse (one reason why it’s cheaper).

    I did see that MAX takes only 20 minutes from Beaverton transit center to downtown, so maybe I’m underestimating the system.

    It’s a good question Hawthorne and one that I’ll ponder in the car today. I’d say: Somewhere between an hour and two hours.

  38. My point is that ridership from Clark County won’t be very high.

    That is not what the ridership studies show and, so far, they have usually underestimated actual ridership. I think it is a mistake to assume too much from your personal situation.

    My point is that without having to travel through a turnstile “undesirable” elements can ride MAX with impunity because they don’t pay the fare.

    MAX has been very successful for over 20 years without turnstiles. There are fare inspectors so no one is riding with impunity any more than people drive drunk with impunity.

    traffic moves quite well after the 2-lane bottleneck at Columbia.

    Of course it does, the “bottleneck” limits the number of vehicles. And aren’t there already ramp meters southbound from Portland and Lombard? I thought there were. And traffic still does not move well at all at the Rose Quarter.

    That’s fine with me – those who use the bridge pay for it and those who don’t use it don’t pay for it.

    If the bridge is paid for entirely by tolls no one will be able to afford to use it. Regardless of whether it is tolled everyone is going to be paying something. The folks that use the bridge will just be paying a little extra while getting all the benefits.

    Someone tells Tri-Met: “Hey, I am your customer and this a change you can make to keep me as your customer and keep me happy”.

    Except the solutions suggested will cost a lot of many and make other customers unhappy.

    Why offer a method of giving feedback if they won’t even reply to somebody?

    I thought you said they did get a reply. You expect a personal response from Fred Hansen when you let him know that MAX is slow through downtown? This is a problem that has been discussed since shortly after the westside MAX line opened. In fact it was discussed before it opened as an anticipated problem.

  39. Its also 20 minutes from Expo Center to Rose Quarter on MAX…additional time to Pioneer Courthouse Square…and this is time you are use to read, reflect or relax.

  40. Expecting something other than a form response to constructive suggestions does not seem unreasonable. It does seem to be basic customer service skills. Otherwise, Trimet appears to be nothing other than an unconcerned bureaucracy. They can’t possibly receive that many emails and or phone calls with constructive suggestions. They should respond with either a brief explanation of why it is not possible, or, if it is already being considered, a rough idea as to when it may be implemented. And a ‘thank you’ either way. Fred Thompson need not be involved.

    Nor is hoping to prevent drunk/rude/intimidating people from riding a particularly extreme suggestion. Sure, given the station designs, turnstiles are never going to happen. But the sentiment that MAX is scary and a haven for criminals is widespread. Discussion about how to prevent that should not be dismissed out of hand.

    Ross, in reading your comments here, I normally regard you as a reasonable and thoughtful individual. Along comes another reasonable and thoughtful individual expressing a differing point of view, and you go into attack mode.

  41. And so long as Fred Thompson isn’t helping out, I guess we probably shouldn’t expect Fred Hanson to either.

    (Proofread, idiot!)

  42. DR Says:
    They can’t possibly receive that many emails and or phone calls with constructive suggestions.

    You have obviously never worked for a public agency. In a metro area of almost 2 million, they surely receive that many, and probably more, with a whole variety of suggestions.

  43. I beleive Fred Hansen rides the 17 NW 21st Avenue bus most days, so he is in close touch with a good cross section of TriMet riders.
    How to make transit ideas reality? I have had a hand in starting three new bus routes to Swan Island, all successful. It takes a good idea, good data, and a good group of advocates to get into the pipeline; then patience and persistance.

  44. But the sentiment that MAX is scary and a haven for criminals is widespread. Discussion about how to prevent that should not be dismissed out of hand.

    There are a lot of criminals and other scary people driving their cars on the street. What are you going to do about it?

    How do you prevent “sentiment” based largely on ignorance? A lot of “scary” people pose no real threat. So how do you prevent people from applying their TV inspired vision on reality.

    How do you convince people MAX is safe? I think the obvious answer is to get them to use it. MAX use does reflect a wide range of people, some of whom no doubt are criminals. But the reality is that there is very little crime on MAX.

  45. Ross:

    I think you’re being needlessly combative here, Stockguy is being perfectly reasonable, if I lived where he did I’d most likely be driving too. The problem people face when taking MAX through downtown is a real one, until Trimet addresses it there is going to be a segment of riders that are better served in their cars instead of on the MAX.

    Furthermore, despite the occasional fare collector it is quite possible to ride MAX without paying the fare, I did so when I was a poor college student so I’m pretty comfortable making that assertion. The idea that MAX is filled with undesirables doesn’t match the reality that I experience when I ride it, but I don’t think you can dismiss out of hand the problems that a lack of turnstiles creates.

    Stockguy: I don’t think that turnstile-controlled trains necessarily rid the trains of the violent or mentally unstable, having grown up in Chicago on the L I have personally witnessed behavior that was much more objectionable than any I’ve witnessed on MAX. The real answer to the problem is having a conductor/security person/fare collector riding on every train, but the money isn’t there and probably won’t be until people indicate they fear for their safety and ridership declines significantly.

  46. As a regular rider and frequent defender of light rail transit, I will say that it is my perception that a fair amount of non-physically-threatening, but still disconcerting and sometimes intimidating behavior does take place, and that fare inspections (or other visible staff presence) do happen but do so relatively infrequently.

    Bad behavior doesn’t pose a major threat, but it does cause people who are “on the fence” about using transit to stay away.

    I think the situation could be improved significantly just by employing “greeters” – a visible individual who rides in fareless square and other trouble spots and simply greets passengers and asks how people are doing. If bad behavior is spotted, it is reported to security. A simple visible presence on a reasonable percentage of the trains through downtown (say 20% or more) will go a long way to sending the message to people who shouldn’t be there (and please take careful note that I’m talking about behavior, not economic status) that they will be observed, and also send the message to passengers that they are not alone with only a security camera to capture events after they happen.

    – Bob R.

  47. Along comes another reasonable and thoughtful individual expressing a differing point of view, and you go into attack mode.

    I haven’t “attacked” anyone but I don’t find his argument either reasonable or thoughtful. He is making generalizations from personal experience. It is the “I wouldn’t ride MAX so neither will anyone else” argument. The fact is other people do use transit. A lot of people use MAX. And they do it despite the terrible “problems” imagined here.

    it is quite possible to ride MAX without paying the fare

    As I said above, it is also quite possible to drive while drunk. The claim was that there were more criminals and drug dealers on MAX as a result of the lack of turnstyles. I don’t think that is “reasonable and thoughtful”. I have been on MAX when people have been caught riding without fare. My wife got a ticket for riding without a fare. Not everyone gets caught every time, but if you ride consistently that way you will eventually.

    The real answer to the problem

    I am not convinced there is a problem. Where is the evidence that MAX is any more dangerous than the local communities it runs through? My understanding was that the actual data shows it is far safer. In fact, if you are looking for a safe place in Rockwood the MAX station is the place to be.

    Are there unpleasant people who occasionally use transit? Yes, there are and if you aren’t willing to accept that, if you want your own personal space where you can sing out loud, then you will drive your auto. Excluding anyone who makes anyone else uncomfortable will make for empty trains and buses. Turnstyles, criminals, drunks and drug dealers have nothing to do with it. “Scary” is probably closer to reality.

  48. Along comes another reasonable and thoughtful individual expressing a differing point of view, and you go into attack mode.

    I haven’t “attacked” anyone but I don’t find his argument either reasonable or thoughtful. He is making generalizations from personal experience. It is the “I wouldn’t ride MAX so neither will anyone else” argument. The fact is other people do use transit. A lot of people use MAX. And they do it despite the terrible “problems” imagined here.

    it is quite possible to ride MAX without paying the fare

    As I said above, it is also quite possible to drive while drunk. The claim was that there were more criminals and drug dealers on MAX as a result of the lack of turnstyles. I don’t think that is “reasonable and thoughtful”. I have been on MAX when people have been caught riding without fare. My wife got a ticket for riding without a fare. Not everyone gets caught every time, but if you ride consistently that way you will eventually.

    The real answer to the problem

    I am not convinced there is a problem. Where is the evidence that MAX is any more dangerous than the local communities it runs through? My understanding was that the actual data shows it is far safer. In fact, if you are looking for a safe place in Rockwood the MAX station is the place to be.

    Are there unpleasant people who occasionally use transit? Yes, there are and if you aren’t willing to accept that, if you want your own personal space where you can sing out loud, then you will drive your auto. Excluding anyone who makes anyone else uncomfortable will make for empty trains and buses. Turnstyles, criminals, drunks and drug dealers have nothing to do with it. “Scary” is probably closer to reality.

  49. Turnstiles at the stations would require that all the stations be staffed to open the gate for bikes, wheelchairs, etc, not to mention keep people from jumping the turnstiles… I believe somewhere Bob R mentioned that that would be ~100 people… However, there are only 105 LRVs, and they don’t run all of them all the time. As such, it would be cheaper on an ongoing basis, (and far more useful anyways,) to have a fare inspector per car than to have turnstiles, and having a fare inspector per car doesn’t have any real capital costs, (compared to tearing up the sidewalks to put turnstiles in,) and we don’t need a fare inspector per car, a fare inspector per every other train would pretty much eliminate 99% of the problems…

    As such, can the turnstile conversation go away now? If more fare inspection would be a good thing, that is one thing, but turnstiles doesn’t solve that problem cheaply or as completely… (We should also discuss how they can’t keep TVMs working, and how people regularly tell fare inspectors that the machine wasn’t working, and get away with it… Even though the machine 50 feet away from it was working just fine, and the guy couldn’t be bothered to check…)

  50. I’ll go one step further. We need only fare inspectors working given segments of the line. Get on, check the fares, get off, check the next train. Cover enough segments, and every train will get checked. The downside: some riders will wind up getting checked two or three times if they ride far enough, which could get really irritating.

    Maybe a dozen fare inspectors in the field at any given time would be enough to do the job. If they don’t work in teams (as they always seem to do today) you might get by with six. But even if you have two shifts of a dozen each, that costs WAY less than staffing turnstile stations.

  51. I have a question: suggestions were made to 3- or 4-track the Steel Bridge. Why would this ever be needed? Seems to me that the capacity constraints would be at the stations at either end. Over the bridge, you could run trains almost back-to-back on the same track, just keeping enough spacing to stop in time. Does anyone know for sure that additional tracks are needed?

    One minor change that would protect MAX capacity is simply closing one of the 2 eastbound auto lanes, just like westbound, and designating it for LRT/buses only.

  52. “I have a question: suggestions were made to 3- or 4-track the Steel Bridge. Why would this ever be needed? Seems to me that the capacity constraints would be at the stations at either end.”

    I believe the constraints aren’t on the bridge itself, but the switches where trains in one direction have to wait for trains in the other to cross their tracks, all the while letting auto/bus traffic go through the intersection at the same time. But yes, after those switches, the next bottleneck is the Rose Quarter (and east to Gateway,) stations, not the actual track itself.

    If it was 4 tracked, it would probably be every other track was an opposite direction, so that yellow line trains would never cross the blue/red lines, and just the green line trains would have to make a crossing of the opposite direction track. That would of course be confusing to cars, so banning them would be easiest, (not to mention, making the intersection easier.)

    There is probably another similar bottleneck at Gateway’s switches, but there are less trains there than at Rose Quarter, so it isn’t a big deal yet…

  53. This is a very interesting thread. A lot of the points raised here just reinforce my conviction that MAX was a big mistake from the get-go, and that Portland would have been much better off without it, investing in the bus system instead. The truth is, there are just too many worms in the MAX operation, most of them inherent (which means that they would be very difficult to “improve”), as has been amply shown in various posts in this thread/

  54. “I beleive Fred Hansen rides the 17 NW 21st Avenue bus most days, so he is in close touch with a good cross section of TriMet riders.”

    That is correct, Fred rides the bus frequently. He’s actually a pretty nice guy; I have spoken to him several times. But above all, he is a politician, and you know what that means!

    “But the reality is that there is very little crime on MAX.”

    I ride the MAX regularly, and it is scary, especially at night. But all public transit systems are scary are they not?

    “A simple visible presence on a reasonable percentage of the trains through downtown (say 20% or more) will go a long way to sending the message to people who shouldn’t be there”

    BINGO, that’s all they need to do, why aren’t they doing it?

    “Look for yourself to see how much crime occurs at a MAX station, or near a MAX station, within Gresham or Portland city limits.”

    Or better yet, go hang out at the GRESHAM, WILLOW CREEK, BEAVERTON, OR HILLSBORO transit center some evening when you’re bored. Believe me, you’re in for a shock! (bring your concealed weapon along!)

  55. Back to the starting point of this thread: As a member of the CRC, I found about the changes when y’all did.

    Just remember, the I-5 commute thru Delta Park will change in two years with the addition of the third lane SB and an e-lane NB. That should help a bit – but the SB congestion will move down to match the NB congestion spot.

    I have and continue to advocate the closure of the inside lanes of the Steel Bridge to auto traffic. No more stop lights on the westside to wait for a train. Just need the lights to queue up. No trains stuck in traffic – especially during RQ events. Safer for all. Now if TriMet et al can figure out a way to pay for and engineer the fix so the trains can go faster over the bridge.

    Brad

  56. “Now if TriMet et al can figure out a way to pay for and engineer the fix so the trains can go faster over the bridge.”

    How about yet another bridge. We can ask the tax payers for a special tax for this too, like the one that Sam Adams is proposing to fix the roads. Lets double our money and double our fun! Double the tax and build the bridge AND fix the roads. Hey its Portland, people love to pay taxes here!

  57. (It isn’t pretty.)

    The links you provided don’t show anything at all. I put in Southwest Morrison and Broadway and got a map of downtown. There didn’t appear to be any pattern associated with MAX stops for any of the crimes listed.

    But you will find that crime statistics tend to go up where there are lots of people – like downtown Portland. MAX stations, of course, are also often located in places where there are lots of people. That doesn’t tell you much about the relative danger for each person or even about where crime is really concentrated. It tells you nothing at all about how safe it is to ride MAX as opposed to driving your car or taking the bus.

    Believe me, you’re in for a shock!

    How many times have you seen someone victimized by a stranger-on-strange crime at any of those locations? I have hung out at Hillsboro and Beaverton transit center waiting for MAX without any incident. Again – I think this is overactive imaginations rather than any real danger. It is a problem, but the problem is people keep repeating their imagined fears as factual risks.

    The attempts to “solve” those problems will accomplish nothing except to create a different set of imagined risks. Those risks are really in people’s heads and you are not going to end the problem by adding fare inspectors. They can’t throw someone off just because some other riders are uncomfortable around them. That was what the Montgomery bus boycott was about.

  58. Beaverton? Willow Creek? Evening? Been there, done that, quite a few times in fact. Never had the slightest bit of fear for my safety. Of course, my home station is the dreaded and notorious 82nd Avenue station, where I frequently board or get off at night. Never felt unsafe there either.

    I’m not being disingenuous here. I’ve been using these stations, especially 82nd, for years now, and that’s included waiting ten or fifteen minutes for a train at night. I’ve never been threatened, never seen anyone else victimized, never had any call to worry about my safety.

    All the years I’ve been riding MAX, I’ve seen exactly ONE stranger-on-stranger crime in front of me — a group of teenagers grabbed a woman’s purse and ran just as the doors closed, at Beaverton Central. That’s it. Oh, and I was personally intimidated by a group of teenagers (not expressly threatened, and they never actually did anything) once in the late 1980s. It happened so long ago I don’t even remember it most of the time.

    I don’t doubt that other crimes happen, but I’ve been riding MAX almost daily since it opened, and spent a lot of time on the “dangerous” parts. If crime was a common occurrence, I think I’d have seen more of it by now.

  59. “Beaverton? Willow Creek? Evening? Been there, done that, quite a few times in fact”

    Yea, well, I do it EVERY NIGHT and can tell you its not a place you want to hang out very long. Sure, strangers aren’t getting beaten up and robbed daily, but there is plenty to worry about being around there.

    You guys wanna see the glass as half full, good for you. Burying your head in the sand is a good tactic, it works for most people.

    GET SECURITY AT ALL THE TRANSIT STATIONS DURING ALL HOURS WHEN THE SYSTEM IS RUNNING.

    Believe what you want to believe, I work here I know the truth, and you have no idea HOW MANY CRIMES OCCUR THAT NEVER GET REPORTED TO ANYBODY!
    As a matter of fact most crimes never get reported!

  60. And one more thing!

    We have police officers who say, in public on camera that the MAX is not safe!

    And then we have members of this group, in their high and mightiness, who have the unmitigated gall to question the credibility of the people that are on the front lines of all this mess, as if you desk jockeys know better than the people who actually do the real work.

    Go write a grant proposal for something will ya, I’m sure you guys are great at that!

  61. Gee, let me see…. I ride MAX nearly every day, frequently ride late at night, use the very stations you labelled as dangerous on a frequent basis, and somehow I’m a “desk jockey” whose burying my head in the sand? As though using the system regularly isn’t being out “on the front lines” as you put it.

    As for police officers, they spend their days responding to emergency situations and seeing the very worst humanity has to offer. If course, it simply isn’t possible their experiences might skew their views a bit.

    Oh, and if “strangers aren’t getting beaten up and robbed daily,” what is the “plenty to worry about” that’s supposed to be scaring me? If I’m not at significant risk of being (a) beaten or (b) robbed, what threats should I be trembling over? Some filthy guy spare-changing me? Teenagers being rowdy? Those are irritants, not threats.

    Nope … not convinced. You’re telling me I should believe you or some random cop over my own eyes. I guess I’ll just have the unmitigated gall, as you put it, to trust my own eyes on this one. After roughly twenty years of experience as a MAX rider, I think I’ve got enough to go on.

  62. We have police officers who say, in public on camera that the MAX is not safe!

    I have yet to find a policeman who thinks the streets he/she works are safe. Police don’t deal with the norm, they get called only when something is abnormal.

    there is plenty to worry about being around there.

    If you are a worrier there are things to worry about everywhere. There are people who avoid the east side of the river in Portland after dark – they worry about anyplace over there.

    you have no idea HOW MANY CRIMES OCCUR THAT NEVER GET REPORTED TO ANYBODY!

    And neither do you. As a result, you can imagine whatever you choose.

  63. the unmitigated gall to question the credibility of the people that are on the front lines of all this mess

    Front lines of what war? This isn’t one and there are no front lines. What mess? There isn’t one.

  64. I’ll tell ya whats obvious to me since joining this group, there are two camps, and they NEVER agree on the issues.

    The BLIND pro rail camp, who says everything is wonderful lets build more till we run out of tracks, and then the rest of us who say fixed rail is good but lets not ignore other needs!

    Somehow the blind pro rail folks such as ross and djk have seized power in this city and its up to us to figure out a way to get them out!

  65. “And neither do you. As a result, you can imagine whatever you choose.”

    I drive a TRIMET BUS through these locations 5 days a week, I think I know a little more about the actual facts of the transit centers than you do.

    I talk regularly to the transit police, I THINK THE TRANSIT POLICE KNOW A LITTLE MORE THAN YOU DO ABOUT THE ACTUAL FACTS OF THE TRANSIT CENTERS THEN YOU DO.

    ITS DANGEROUS, NOT MATTER WHAT ROSS AND DJK ATTEMPT TO RATIONALIZE. THEY DONT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT, NO MATTER HOW GOOD THEY ARE AT THE WRITTEN WORD!

  66. You know, Al, yelling doesn’t make an unsupported point any more supported. You have actual statistic evidence to support your claim that transit centers are dangerous places, do provide it.

    Until then, you’re just telling me to ignore the real world that I see around me every day because you’re ranting on about unspecified dangers.

    Also, classifying me as a “blind pro rail” pollyanna who ignores other needs tells me that you really haven’t paid much attention to what I’ve written here over the past two years. Of course I’m pro-rail. I’m also pro-bus (like almost every other person here), pro-bicycle, and generally pro-private car (even though I don’t personally own one, I think they’re largely a good thing).

    But since you clearly don’t trouble yourself to get your facts straight, I feel safe in disregarding your hysterical rants. Start bringing something solid and verifiable to the table, and maybe I’ll take you seriously someday.

  67. DJK:

    I’m through discussing this issue. You’ve made up your mind and I am trying to convey to other readers that your WRONG.

    (in capitals for emphasis)

  68. I’ll try and toss out a “can’t we all get along” comment here —

    People clearly have strong personal opinions and differing long-term actual real-life observations here. Without better statistics that what has been presented so far, it is difficult for anyone to draw real conclusions about safety outside of their sphere of personal experience.

    I hope that one thing we can all agree on is that among a significant portion of potential and actual transit riders, there is at least a perception of a lack of security.

    Now, government agencies shouldn’t run around catering merely to “perception” especially when budgets are tight and “real” reality has pressing needs that need to be addressed.

    But I am sure that any private business, faced with the knowledge that a number of customers rightly or wrongly perceived visiting that business to be unsafe, would institute steps to lessen the fears of those customers. That would be a smart business decision in the long run.

    Getting back into anecdotal territory, when I shop I see more visible security and staff presence in our regional malls than I do on MAX. How much of that is to deal with simple bad behavior rather than actual unsafe conditions doesn’t change the fact that there is a visible presence — it gives customers confidence that if there is an actual problem, there is someone on the premises who might be able to do something about it.

    In my years riding MAX, I’ve personally seen everything from simple shouting and running, to vomiting from public drunkenness, to gangs of kids impeding the ability of an adult woman to leave her seat, to being personally threatened at knife point. (I hesitate to bring up the knife incident, I don’t think I’ve mentioned it before, because the situation was bizarrely complicated and neither I nor the person with me actually felt physically threatened. It was just really weird.)

    I’m sure if you added up all the times I’ve ridden transit, combined with all the people who rode with me, and worked out a rate of incidents, the actual rate of anything bad happening would be very, very low.

    In the motorist world, I’ve had my vehicles robbed on multiple occasions in multiple cities, I’ve been hit more than once, and I’ve known people who have received very serious injuries. I have witnessed the traffic fatalities of people I don’t even know. Yet in the grand scheme of all the trips I’ve taken, I know that the incident rate is rather low. And of course, I’ve witnessed a stunning amount of bad behavior on the road.

    To morbidly combine the topics of transit safety vs. automobile safety, when I was a kid I was on a bus, not far from TriMet HQ, which was broadsided by a pickup which ran a red light. The driver of the pickup was killed and it was pretty messy — I caught a good glimpse of the carnage as a kid, but I have no clear memory of exactly what I saw… someone on the scene told us that the driver had been decapitated during the impact.

    But nonetheless, when you aren’t surrounded by tons of metal independently moving you through traffic, but are sharing close quarters with a crowd of strangers, I think the instinctual human reaction to potential threats is heightened — people just feel more threatened without a metal box around them, even if the actual risk may be lower.

    We need to take these perception issues into account when determining how to best provide for security and safety on transit, as well as furthering the goal of increased transit use.

    – Bob R.

  69. I hope that one thing we can all agree on is that among a significant portion of potential and actual transit riders, there is at least a perception of a lack of security.

    No, I don’t think we can agree on that. We can agree there is a perception by some people that some places in Portland aren’t safe.

    Whether any of the folks that complain about sharing their ride with homeless, criminals and drug dealers can be convinced that they should use transit is a an open question. I doubt it. Those complaints aren’t about the behavior, its about the people.

    I can understand being uncomfortable with a smelly drunk, but it is not a safety issue. If you are afraid he will fall in your lap because he can’t stand up, the solution is to offer him your seat. If Neil Goldschmidt wants to use transit you can’t keep him off just because I don’t want to share a ride with a criminal and child molester. Of course, its not really those sorts of criminals that people are talking about.

    We need to take these perception issues into account when determining how to best provide for security and safety on transit, as well as furthering the goal of increased transit use.

    I agree entirely. But we also need to recognize when the real issue is unresolvable.

    sharing close quarters with a crowd of strangers, I think the instinctual human reaction to potential threats is heightened

    Is that true? Do you feel heightened sense of threat when you go to a movie or a basketball game or a public meeting? I think the crowd is not the issue. The issue is whether the parts of the public that make somebody feel uncomfortable are excluded.

  70. Do you feel heightened sense of threat when you go to a movie or a basketball game or a public meeting?

    At local movie theaters, a staff member usually enters the theater two or three times during a movie to look over the audience and make sure there is no rowdy behavior. I have seen people ejected from movie theaters for doing far less than people are complaining about on MAX.

    I once went to a screening of “The Last Temptation of Christ” where a right-wing protester (in a reverend’s collar, no less) sat on top of the hood of my car so as to detain me and complete his diatribe — when we were LEAVING the theater after having already seen the movie. It was the intervention of uniformed security staff that allowed people to enter and leave the theater parking lot freely.

    I see uniformed security at every large sporting event I’ve ever attended.

    I’ve been to a lot of public meetings, and at one particular meeting about a very hot marriage topic my path into the meeting facility was physically barred by a right-wing protester who shouted directly into my face. The protesters did not back down from shouting at people and blocking passage until the police showed up. I’ve been to a public meeting where somebody actually came into the building and panhandled but that was before the meeting began.

    Ross – There is a continuum of perceived threats and minor irritants that can be partially relieved with the physical presence of staff, not necessarily needing to be security officers. What I am arguing is that we’ve erred in providing too little of this visible presence. Throwing a ton of staff at the problem won’t dramatically improve things in proportion to the effort, but I think providing an increase over what we have today can do a lot of good.

    – Bob R.

  71. Bob –

    That is a long list of confrontations with individuals. Would you have been less frightened if they had happened on a deserted street with fewer people?

    I have seen people ejected from movie theaters for doing far less than people are complaining about on MAX.

    I have seen people ejected from movie theaters for refusing to stop talking. Is that the standard? The problem is that the complaints you have heard are not about behavior, they are about the people. Its not being drunk or even throwing up, its being a homeless drunks who smells bad, that is the problem people want fixed.

    There is a continuum of perceived threats and minor irritants that can be partially relieved with the physical presence of staff

    And I doubt it would make any difference for the folks who are complaining. They would just be upset that the people who annoyed them weren’t thrown off the bus/train.

  72. And I doubt it would make any difference for the folks who are complaining.

    Ross –

    Some of the “folks” who are complaining are people I know personally, and who are occasional-to-regular transit riders.

    I agree that there are people who just aren’t going to ride transit and will state a whole variety of reasons including security, etc., and nothing we do will make a difference. Fine. Forget about those people. I’m talking about people who use the system and want to make it better.

    Would you have been less frightened if they had happened on a deserted street with fewer people?

    I would have been less surprised.

    The problem is that the complaints you have heard are not about behavior, they are about the people.

    Not in my case, no.

    Its not being drunk or even throwing up, its being a homeless drunks who smells bad, that is the problem people want fixed.

    No, it is about the being drunk and throwing up. There are plenty of homeless people and people in bad economic circumstances who ride just fine without creating any disruption. Then there are the people who do create disruptions, force people out of their seats (which you appear to think is OK based on your statements earlier today) and intimidate and threaten, even if there is little chance that the intimidators will follow-through on those threats.

    I really don’t see why we’re arguing here. I’m talking about improving conditions that are less than optimal, not about kicking out the homeless or accommodating the views of people who will never ever ride transit or anything of the sort.

    I know one person quite well who regularly uses transit but only for rush-hour commuting, but who avoids evening trip to a restaurant or movie theater because of perceptions of security. That’s the kind of person who I think we can help to ride transit more often, whilst simultaneously improving conditions for existing regular riders.

    – Bob R.

  73. Getting back to the topic of the Columbia River Crossing (maybe there should be an “Open Thread on Transit Service and Policy,” sorta like the “Open Thread for Topic Suggestions” to discuss the overall stuff that keeps popping up multiple times in every single thread), I had one of those lightning-in-a-brainstorm moments the other day about the whole light rail/public transit investment debate:

    People talk about how public transit (especially light rail) is good at generating transit trips between locations served. Maybe part of the issue with light rail vs. roads is instead of taking cars off the road, it instead creates additional trips that wouldn’t have occurred if the transit service didn’t exist, and most everyone that drives continues to drive no matter what kind of “options” they’re provided with?
    What I’m saying is let’s say (hypothetically, and assuming no population growth – remember, this is hypothetical!) there’s a bridge where 1,000 vehicles an hour during rush hour use the lanes of traffic, including 4 40′ buses an hour (15 min. intervals) that all consistently carry full loads of 40 people, without any dedicated transit lanes/rails through the same location.
    Light rail is then built, and 1,000 vehicles an hour are still using the bridge during rush hour, the 4 40′ buses/hr. are carrying 35 people/run, and the light rail is now running 6 times/hr. (10 min. intervals) with 2 100-person-capacity cars, and carrying an average of 190 people/run.; where out of that 190 none of them gave up their car and only 5 people/run switched from the bus, so the other 185 are people that wouldn’t be going to their destination at that time (or at all) without light rail.
    So, the same people who were driving are then complaining that if the money was spent on vehicle traffic lanes on a new bridge vs. light rail that more people would be better moved through the area, because the light rail didn’t positively affect their commute personally.

    Once again, that above illustration was hypothetical, not based on CRC numbers, just something I came up with while writing this post to illustrate what I was thinking of.

  74. I think that Bob R. makes a great point- it sort of doesn’t matter if it’s reality or not…if it’s perception and we want to increase transit usage then we need to deal with that.

    There are lots of ways to attack the perception- armed guards seems to be a popular suggestion on this board, but that is just one. The other end of the perception is via social marketing. Regardless, a solution in the end will probably require both.

  75. armed guards seems to be a popular suggestion on this board

    I know you weren’t referring to me, but I’d like to point out again that I’m primarily advocating for a mix of “greeters” and more fare inspections, not armed guards. :-)

    I’ll take Jason’s suggestion and cease debating this issue in the CRC thread.

    – Bob R.

  76. No, it is about the being drunk and throwing up. There are plenty of homeless people and people in bad economic circumstances who ride just fine without creating any disruption. Then there are the people who do create disruptions, force people out of their seats (which you appear to think is OK based on your statements earlier today)

    Lets be clear, this discussion started about barriers to people using transit from Clark County, not how to improve security on MAX. And the question of security was raised as a reason someone didn’t use MAX.

    That story about a “homeless” person did not have him actually throwing up. It had him smelly, drunk, unstable and falling down and looking like he might vomit. And this wasn’t “new year’s eve, it was at 5:30” etc.

    This was not someone who should have been removed from the MAX. He was someone who should have been found a seat, just like you would a senior citizen or someone else who was clearly having a hard time standing up. And if he had been dressed in a suit and perfumed up and looked like their uncle or co-worker who had a bit too much to drink, someone would have found him a place to sit. No “force” needed.

    And the reality is that if you can’t tolerate that kind of interaction with people, you will pay a very high price to avoid it. Which means you won’t use transit, guards or no guards.

    The exact same complaints are made about buses and every one has a driver on it. If you want to really improve safety and service, make the wait on the empty street corner shorter. Maybe the problem is not enough seats. If they provided everyone with a place to sit with no “homeless” people sitting next to them, those people would use transit.

    the other 185 are people that wouldn’t be going to their destination at that time (or at all) without light rail.

    While I don’t think your percentages are correct, the idea is. The fact is that when you provide opportunities people take them. So you now have 185 more people commuting from Clark County and no more vehicles. The purpose of MAX is to provide mobility – not reduce congestion.

    Where there is congestion relief its because there is now an attractive alternative. Which means people have a lower level of tolerance for congestion and create less as a result.

  77. The purpose of MAX is to provide mobility – not reduce congestion.

    According to TriMet’s Fact Sheet, available as a public document on TriMet’s website, under “maintaining livability” as TriMet’s goals/purpose, number one is “Easing Traffic Congestion”.

  78. Here is the first thing on that brochure is

    “Ridership

    TriMet is a national leader in providing
    transit service. TriMet carries more
    people than any other U.S. transit
    system its size. Weekly ridership on
    buses and MAX has increased for
    19 consecutive years.

    TriMet ridership has outpaced
    population growth and daily
    vehicle miles traveled for more
    than a decade.”

    It then lists reducing congestion and clean air under “maintaining livability”. They aren’t numbered and those are the only places congestion is mentioned in the four page brochure.

    On the same page there is a box “Transit Works”. No mention of congestion. On the next page there is a list of all the MAX lines with a box that says “Connecting Communities”. No mention of congestion. The rest of the brochure describes other Trimet services that provide mobility – no mention of congestion.

    Frankly – pulling one mention of congestion out of a four page brochure and describing it as “number one” in that manner is completely misleading and deceptive.

  79. Ross:

    The purpose of MAX is to provide mobility – not reduce congestion.

    Ross:

    It then lists reducing congestion and clean air under “maintaining livability”.

  80. “Frankly – pulling one mention of congestion out of a four page brochure and describing it as “number one” in that manner is completely misleading and deceptive.”

    JEEZ LOUISE! Its a brochure for crying out loud!

    P-R-O-P-A-G-A-N-D-A

    Its like listening to George Bush and actually believing anything that comes out of his mouth!

  81. I think it boils down to semantics: How much emphasis do you put in the “the” in “the purpose” while allowing for the fact that congestion relief (I prefer to say “easing the pressure on congestion” when I talk about it) is mentioned in some TriMet literature.

    It is clear that TriMet routinely lists a number of positive outcomes for transit, and congestion “relief” is often mentioned, but I’ve never seen it listed as a primary purpose for transit, more often listed as an added benefit.

    Personally, I don’t like the use of the word “relief”, because some people can take that to mean that congestion is noticeably reduced or goes away. I prefer “ease the pressure” because what happens when you provide alternatives is that some people can use those alternatives, allowing opportunities for other people to use the congested roadway — this winds up serving more people overall, but doesn’t necessarily mean that there will be a noticeable drop in present congestion, although there can be a measurable slowing in the rate of congestion increase as more and more new travelers use the transit alternative.

    But that’s a lot to cram into a brochure, so I can see why shortcut phrases like “congestion relief” are convenient to use.

    – Bob R.

  82. Hell, I run a property over here in NW Portland, and on my web site main page it says:

    VOTED BEST IN NORTHWEST!

    Well guess who voted? ME, that’s right, I voted it best in northwest, its my propaganda, and it works!

    You can’t take any brochure, from any institution, public or private, and actually believe any of the information that institution provides about itself, EVER!

  83. You can’t take any brochure, from any institution, public or private, and actually believe any of the information that institution provides about itself, EVER!

    I don’t think that anyone here disagrees with that sentiment, Al. It’s just a mystery as to why Erik would use a single sentence from a brochure to prove a point about the purpose of MAX.

    – Bob R.

  84. Because Erik is Erik!

    If he (or anyone) can find support for their own agenda by using the literature of an agency against themselves, well, that seems a smart way to go to me!

  85. “I think it boils down to semantics:”

    No – I think it all boils down to honest discussion because what I said was:

    “The purpose of MAX is to provide mobility – not reduce congestion.

    Where there is congestion relief its because there is now an attractive alternative.”

    There is a need for transit whether it reduces congestion or helps clean air. The fact that Tri-Met mentions all its benefits is hardly surprising.

    But there is a larger issue there. Which is that part of the purpose of all transportation investments is to increase peoples’ opportunities. The fact that more people can commute from Clark County to a wider range of jobs is not a bad thing. More of them in automobiles driving to Portland is.

  86. Bob –

    Sorry – I understood that. I shouldn’t have used your quote to set the stage for a response.

  87. What good is a discussion group if everybody agrees with everybody else?

    I think the best groups are the ones where people are able to get upset and communicate that in writing without getting crude.

    This is the most literate, intelligent group I have ever seen, ANYWHERE, and I’m not kidding!

    This group is definitely not for amateurs. You’ll go crazy trying to debate some of the people on this forum!

  88. “The purpose of MAX is to provide mobility – not reduce congestion.”

    >>>> The purpose of MAX is to fill the pockets of crony contractors, and bring joy to Europhiles and hobbyist railfans, among others.

    Oh–and to screw transit users like me by degrading the integrity of the transit system.

  89. Nick –

    Please try to keep it more factual and reasonably on-topic. We’ve heard your aspersions about “railfans” before, although I must admit this is the first time I’ve seen you toss out “Europhiles”.

    – Bob R.

  90. “Although I must admit this is the first time I’ve seen you toss out “Europhiles.”

    >>>> Oh yeah, I’ve mentioned that before, under the term “Euro wanna-be’s.” I have realized that that is part of the problem also–didn’t Charlie Hales say that Portland was the most European city in America because it now had a streetcar?

    As for being factual, it’s very “factual” to me when I want to travel around Wash. County or go to places like Jantzen Beach, which were easier to do before MAX came into being. Or not want to ride some MAX lines at night because of possible unpleasant experiences, like you yourself have admitted.

  91. didn’t Charlie Hales say that Portland was the most European city in America

    Yes.

    because it now had a streetcar

    No.

    [I do not want] to ride some MAX lines at night because of possible unpleasant experiences, like you yourself have admitted.

    Just to clarify, I “admitted” (as if it was some kind of interrogation) that unpleasant experiences happen on transit, and that those experiences affect perceptions and those perceptions may prevent some people from riding … I still personally ride transit at night.

    – Bob R.

Leave a Reply to Ross Williams Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *