Access vs. Mobility in the Streetcar Loop


There was a request in the open suggestion thread to review the “Northrup Loop” option for the Streetcar Loop connection in the Pearl District, so this post will give it a shot.

As part of the Streetcar Loop now pending approval for Federal funding, the Streetcar will cross the Broadway Bridge and connect with the existing alignment somewhere on or near Lovejoy St. Exactly how we make that connection has several complicating factors, including:

  • The desire of the neighborhood to improve traffic circulation by making several pairs of coupleted streets, including a Lovejoy/Northrup couplet.
  • The need to have a turnaround opportunity in the Pearl to send vehicles back to the east side without going all the way to Market St. (currently the first available turnaround).
  • Respecting the needs of cyclists, for whom the Lovejoy ramp is a major entry point into the district.
  • Connectivity for vehicles dispatched from the maintenance facility to get to the east side (and for future service from NW 23rd to the east side).
  • Transit needs of the development now happening north of Lovejoy (which will be taller and denser than south of Lovejoy)
  • Travel times
  • Cost
  • Retail needs (read on-street parking)

Here is a PDF file with maps (532K) of the two options under consideration. The choice has received much discussion at the Project Committee, Pearl District Transportation Committee, Streetcar Board and the steering committee that oversees the Federal application.

The eastbound connection is straightforward: a switch at 10th and Lovejoy will allow the northbound Streetcar to turn right onto Lovejoy and east across the bridge.

The two options being considered for the westbound connection are:

“The Northrup Loop” (2nd page of PDF), which is currently be carried as the base option (despite what this revision of the maps says), and which would have the Streetcar come west off the bridge and turn right onto 10th and join the existing track on which it would turn west onto Northrup. A new switch and track segment would be installed from Northrup onto 11th and the vehicle would cross Lovejoy and join the currently alignment heading south on 11th into downtown. An additional switch/turn would be installed at 11th and Lovejoy to provide a turnaround back to the east side.

“The Lovejoy Option” (1st page of PDF) would avoid the northward turn and simply turn left from Lovejoy, joining the current track on 11th. A turnaround would then be installed on Hoyt St.

Note that in both options, in order to preserve the ability to convert Lovejoy and Northrup into a couplet, the Streetcar on Lovejoy is in a curbside lane (not the auto lane) which would become a “contra-flow” lane in the event that Lovejoy is converted to eastbound-only traffic in a couplet.

The “Northrup Loop” is strongly preferred by the Pearl District and Northwest District for these reasons:

  • It provides downtown travel options for development in the blocks north of Lovejoy.
  • It allows for direct travel to and from NW 23rd to the east side for future service.
  • It minimizes removal of on-street parking.

The “cons” for this approach are:

  • Costs $3-4M more.
  • Adds 2+ minutes of travel time for passengers from the east side.
  • If services opens with a turnaround in the Pearl, the transfer from east side service to downtown service will require walking several blocks to make the transfer.

The debate seems to be coming down to the additional access provided by the Northrup Loop versus the travel time difference and awkwardness of the temporary transfer. The funds for the more expensive option have already been budgeted from the Urban Renewal district, so cost is not a primary argument (the Urban Renewal funds cannot be used in other parts of the alignment, they can only be used inside the district).

The transfer issue can be mitigated in two ways:

  1. Find the operating funding to run the initial service all the way to PSU.
  2. Install the Hoyt Street turnaround in the Northrup option (more cost).

The debate will probably go on for a couple more months, but for the moment the Northrup Loop appears to be the preferred option.

For my part, I think the additional access (and future system flexibility) provided by the Northrup option are the key factors. The additional access outweighs the delay in travel time (i.e., mobility) in my mind.


33 responses to “Access vs. Mobility in the Streetcar Loop”

  1. Chris-

    Streetcar service is already considered to be pretty slow, regardless of the facts. I don’t think that anything that adds two additional minutes to the schedule should be considered, if it’s also more expensive.

    We’re talking about making folks further north walk just two additional blocks, right?

    Or is the issue that there won’t be a station right there for westbound travellers? Wouldn’t it be cheaper to add a westbound station than to both spend more money on an out-of-the-way alignment, AND add two minutes to the schedule?

  2. As a CAC member, I have voiced my disapproval of the Northrup Loop alignment and its inherent delays and (for now) out-of-direction travel. However, it should be noted that for several reasons, the local neighborhood association has quite strongly supported the Northrup Loop alignment. Any alternative alignment is going to need to have at least lukewarm support from within the neighborhood.

    Chris – I asked Rick at one meeting the following question, and his answer was basically “No”, but I’d really like to know more details as to why … perhaps you can answer … Part of the controversy/difficulty regarding federal funding is their scoring methodology for “cost-effectiveness”. My question is this: Wouldn’t shifting to a faster, cheaper alignment improve our score with the Feds?

    I can accept “it doesn’t make enough difference to matter to them” in place of “No, no difference”, but the feeling I get was that Rick meant the latter.

    (Or, is it because the Northrup alignment would be locally funded, having no impact on federal funding?)

    On the plus side, there are some decisions/proposals on the east side which will improve trip times, including a dedicated streetcar lane southbound near the Convention Center (without the removal of auto lanes, by the way) … if implemented that could save more time at peak hour than the Northrup Loop option removes.

  3. According to Wellsian theory, in some cases, slower is actually faster. The streetcar may seem slow, but it is faster than buses at delivering people to places where they want to be; more people want to be travelling by streetcar.

    I think the need for the 2 new stations on Lovejoy is questionable. The station on westbound Lovejoy (between 9th-10th) will impede traffic flow. During afternoon rush, the eastbound station will probably impede traffic even with the couplet. I just don’t think these 2 stations are necessary.

    Of course, the “Hoyt Loop” is simpler for affecting transfers. Transferring from westbound-to-downtown on the “Northrup loop” requires a 3-or 4-block walk.

    A few months back, I presented Chris with an idea that the turn south from Northrup could be on 12th rather than 11th. Apparently, Chris didn’t give the idea much thought.

    I was going for simplification – the ‘X’ rail junction at 11th and Lovejoy is eliminated this way. Perhaps more important, if a new station is located on 12th before the turn east onto Lovejoy, the transfer from westbound travel to downtown (and the transfer to continue eastbound travel to Lloyd District) is shortened from 3-4 blocks to 1 block.

    The idea of turning on 12th and locating a station near Lovejoy, will make westbound trips to Safeway faster, also faster to Tanner Springs Park, the new big park and other destinations north of Lovejoy. See? Slower is faster.

  4. Wells writes: I think the need for the 2 new stations on Lovejoy is questionable. The station on westbound Lovejoy (between 9th-10th) will impede traffic flow. During afternoon rush, the eastbound station will probably impede traffic even with the couplet. I just don’t think these 2 stations are necessary.

    Wells, I think (if I understand what you’re saying correctly) that this actually won’t be an issue.

    Westbound, between 9th and 10th, the streetcar will be operating in a streetcar-only lane (carved out of existing parking spaces). Stops at the mid-block platform will not impede automobile traffic.

    Eastbound, at 9th, Lovejoy currently only has one eastbound through-lane, which opens up to 2 eastbound lanes as you cross 9th onto the Broadway Bridge ramp. (The other lane turns left/northbound onto 9th.)

    In the proposed eastbound streetcar alignment, this configuration will not change significantly … between 9th and 10th the streetcar ROW will again be carved out of parking, and with the station placed _just_ east of 9th, the Broadway Bridge ramp will open up into 2 lanes just east of the platform, or about 70ft further than today. (It is my understanding that this will be a shared streetcar/auto lane … Chris please correct me if I’m wrong.)

    A streetcar stopped at this station would only be an impediment to automobiles in circumstances where cars are backed up in both ramp lanes all the way down to the base of the ramp, and signal prioritization may be able to take care of that if/when it happens.

    See this Google Street View of the Broadway Bridge ramp.

    I think the 2 Lovejoy stations are necessary for a variety of reasons, but also because it provides relatively convenient (but non-obvious) access to Amtrak / Union Station. (About .18 to .24 miles legal walk streetcar platform-to-station lobby) — it could be made shorter and more obvious if a dedicated walkway could be negotiated with the Post Office, but I don’t think anyone’s working on that angle.

  5. While I am a huge user and supporter of the streetcar, I have to say the streetcar has some very awkward track, both existing and proposed. For example the Montgomery/4th block single track, the track on the parking lane of Market Street to avoid the sewer line, the single track by the Riverplace Residence Inn, the left lane track on Bond St. in SoWa to avoid the bike lane, the track by the aerial tram, to name the existing ones. And of course there is the proposed Johns Landing trackage that would detour to Macadam for a few blocks. Plus the proposed eastside streetcar line that has the northbound track stay on Grand while the southbound track goes way over to NE 7th then back to MLK. I really wish there was more concern for building ideal and balanced alignments even if it a cost a little more and also more emphasis on future track running both directions on a single street. This loop seems to be more complicated trackage that takes the path of least resistance as opposed to optimal track.

    I cant say I’m crazy about the “go north to go south” Northrup track including its awkward transfer. And I am a resident who lives right next to Jamison Square in the immediate area affected by both of these loops.

    I realize it will likely not happen but I wish it was possible to study a stop at NW Lovejoy and NW Broadway right at the intersection at the western approach to the Broadway Bridge to allow streetcar riders to get to Union Station directly below and accessed by stairs (the existing NW Broadway sidewalks ramping down to Irving would probably avoid the need for an elevator).

  6. In addition to the ‘X’ rail junction at 11th and Lovejoy being eliminated, there is 1 switch and 1 of those angled connections eliminated. The turn on 12th probably less expensive.

    I’ve put some effort into this idea and expect an answer from someone running for a city council seat.

  7. My question is this: Wouldn’t shifting to a faster, cheaper alignment improve our score with the Feds?

    Maybe, or maybe more ridership from going further north would improve our score.

    But the reality is that the Feds are playing politics with our score anyway, which is why this doesn’t really matter.

    In addition to the ‘X’ rail junction at 11th and Lovejoy being eliminated, there is 1 switch and 1 of those angled connections eliminated. The turn on 12th probably less expensive.

    No one I know on the engineering side has flagged the X junction as much of an issue.

    With regard to the stations, the neighborhood doesn’t particularly care about the eastbound station at 9th. My guess is that might not happen until the Post Office is redeveloped, at which point it would probably have pretty strong support.

  8. JW wrote: I cant say I’m crazy about the “go north to go south” Northrup track including its awkward transfer. And I am a resident who lives right next to Jamison Square in the immediate area affected by both of these loops.

    JW, if you feel strongly about this, now would be a very good time to communicate this to your neighborhood association and at the Loop CAC and Portland Streetcar CAC meetings!

    Regarding a few of the other existing trackway issues you mentioned, there is some hope.

    In the single-track area with the tight corner near Montgomery/4th, this is a temporary alignment. The block (known as “Block 153”) is slated for redevelopment and at the very least it will have one diagonal track going through it (similar to the PSU Urban Center block), possibly 2 (which would remove the 4th/Montgomery trackage entirely). The Portland Streetcar CAC has recommended formally that a 2-track diagonal alignment is preferred.

    Regarding the single-track section south of Riverplace, this is envisioned as becoming more of a couplet over time as the area N. of the Ross Island Bridge is developed.

    Personally, I think one thing which would improve trip times and the perception of speed a lot (both for streetcars and for buses that share portions of the alignment) would be the introduction traffic signals timed with the street grid in place of the stop signs at several key intersections in the Pearl District and South Waterfront. (Anywhere you have a 4-way stop which doesn’t also include a streetcar platform would be a good place to examine.)

  9. The 2 maps have different Lovejoy lane configurations. The ‘Hoyt loop’ is the couplet eastbound Lovejoy. The ‘Northrup loop’ is 2-way Lovejoy. This made the maps a little difficult to understand at first.

    In the 2-way Lovejoy configuration, the eastbound track is in a separate lane, so the streetcar shouldn’t block traffic much in that direction, nor much with the couplet because of the 2nd lane eastbound. The westbound track is in-traffic in both lovejoy configurations, but westbound traffic doesn’t backup like eastbound traffic, so my concern about traffic backups in both directions does now seem unecessary.

    I hadn’t thought about access to Union Station or the transit mall. So, I can see that the stops on Lovejoy do make sense and shouldn’t block traffic too much.

    Direct streetcar service between NW 23rd and Lloyd District could work with the ‘Hoyt loop’ – it would just involve eventually adding the turn north onto 10th and the missing link of rail on Lovejoy between 11th and 10th, or, use the Hoyt loop route circuitously east-west.

    I still think the idea of turning south from Northrup on 12th isn’t such a bad idea.

    Either route option looks good.

    Does the couplet split on 9th or 10th?

  10. adding the turn north onto 10th and the missing link of rail

    Call us paranoid, but the neighborhood would like to get it all built at once to make sure it gets built :-)

    Also, both plans need to be compatible with a Lovejoy/Northrup couplet, so in either config Streetcar would be in a contra-flow lane where the parking is now.

    Does the couplet split on 9th or 10th?

    The thinking is to peel off bikes on 9th (and probably send them up Marshall) and cars and Streetcars at 10th.

  11. Thanks for posting this info – really very interesting proposals.

    My initial response is to cringe at another unnecessarily indirect routing of our rail transit system. But, Chris explained the reasons well. I have a couple of thoughts and suggestions:
    1. If the immediate intent of the loop is to run cars from the eastside only to the Pearl, then it matters little whether the turnaround goes north to Northrup, or south to Hoyt. Either will require a transfer to reach downtown.
    2. I expect cars ultimately to run from eastside directly to downtown – this provides a no-transfer connection, and doubles the frequency of cars on 10th/11th (with some cars Nob-bound and some eastside-bound), both valuable goals. If this is indeed the ultimate routing, then sending cars on a 4-block detour for the Northrup loop is outright undesirable.
    3. This undesirable long-term routing in the Northrup option can be mitigated simply by adding one block of westbound track on Lovejoy to reach 11th, facilitating the direct path when needed (soon, I hope). This only costs 4-5 (?) parking spaces, and does not appear to violate the other neighborhood expectations listed. I would think it to be an error to miss this opportunity now (parking spaces will be even tougher to lose later).

    Perhaps #3 could be acceptable to the ‘hood while still keeping an eye on the future system needs.

    And, echoing Bob’s comments, I suggest placing stations at stop signs as appropriate (if planned to remain), and avoid nearside station placement at existing or planned signals.

  12. Wow, there’s been a real surge of comment activity in the past 30 minutes. (Blog-wide). I guess everyone’s done watching the primaries? :-)

    Chris –

    Can you get a hold of a higher resolution version of the maps PDF you posted? I think a lot of questions could be answered if the arrows and lines were more clear when zoomed-in. In addition, a map showing just the proposed automobile couplet patterns without the streetcar overlaid might add clarity.

  13. If what Chris posted is correct and automobile traffic is diverted to Northrup at 10th, then there could be a problem for traffic as Wells suggests for the westbound mid-block stop between 9th and 10th.

    It’s been awhile since I’ve driven on that section of 9th … Google Maps interestingly does not show a street connection in the map view, but the satellite photo does show a complete street with parking on Northrup between 9th and 10th. Is that a legal through-connection? (Can you drive westbound all the way on Northrup starting on 9th?)

    If there is a working street connection to 9th, experienced drivers will learn to use 9th as the couplet link whenever a streetcar is visible a block or two in front of them, but people unfamiliar with the area won’t.

    If it is undesirable to the neighborhood to officially divert couplet traffic via 9th, they may be surprised to see that as a default peak-hour behavior among those “in the know” anyway.

    Anybody have better knowledge about this connection?

    (Update: The Geek in me is fascinated that the Google Street View image of this segment of Northrup clearly shows a paved street going through, with no prohibitive signage at either end. But, because it is not on the logical Google/NAVTEQ map, apparently the Street View camera car did not drive on it, even though it was obviously an open public street.)

  14. Not sure I’m going to have time to run down more maps. I have another project that is taking priority :-)

    If the Streetcar turns right on 10th, I don’t think there would be a westbound stop on Lovejoy, we’d just use the existing stop at 10th and Marshall.

  15. This section of Northrup is new, opened around ’05. Google’s map may be a little out-of-date.

    Operationally, 9th would be a better place to transition the couplet. I think the problem is access – 10th is already one-way northbound, so making 9th the same effectively blocks drivers from Northrup area from reaching the bridge without a lot of out-of-direction travel. Too bad the 8th Avenue r/w does not exist here.

  16. You can’t transition bikes and cars on the same street. The bikes would not have a way to make the left turn across two lanes of traffic to get up Marshall.

    Keep in mind that we (Streetcar) are disrupting a major bike corridor here. We need to be respectful!

  17. This might be slightly of topic but is related.

    Are there any studies being conducted about how to deal with traffic on eastbound Lovejoy causing very significant streetcar delays during rush hour?

    To avoid gridlock, the streetcars will not block the intersections. However, cars turning right/east onto Lovejoy will fill in the block by turning right on a red light, thereby forcing the streetcar to wait through several traffic signal cycles before it can proceed. Is there any consideration for giving signal priority to the streetcars or installing no right turn on red signs to deal with this problem?

    If you already have a post discussing this pointing to it will suffice.

  18. Are there any studies being conducted about how to deal with traffic on eastbound Lovejoy causing very significant streetcar delays during rush hour?

    Yes, that’s part of the motivation to make Lovejoy and Northrup a one-way couplet.

    In general, the Pearl is looking at having more one-way couplets, becoming more of an extension of the downtown grid.

  19. The east bound streetcars need to go on into city center, which offers no transfer service to commuters coming into town, this is the only option worth considering…but should not need to go all the way to Market..

  20. There is an existing switch at 10th and Market which would allow trains to loop back. (I believe this was a manually-operated switch when first installed. I don’t know if it has since been automated.) See this Google Map for an aerial view.

    Looping back at a point earlier than Market would require additional trackwork.

    (I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that such new trackwork could dovetail nicely with a future east-west alignment for a Hawthorne streetcar line. :-) )

  21. The consideration of couplets is important part of the streetcar projects. Look at Glisan-Everett. At several points along these streets traffic gets moving a little too fast for safe pedestrian travel. Careful design of sidewalks and the use curb extensions at intersections is not just a ‘nicety’ or a sort of ‘disney-fication’. Curb extensions a few intersections along Glisan and Everett is absolutely necessary for public safety.

    Streetcar lines require modification of sidewalks and the use of curb extensions, mostly for station stops, at rail turns and at other points where sidewalks may absolutely require rebuilding. Transit users are first of all, pedestrians. Walking to the streetcar stop means crossing numerous streets. This is another consideration that bus systems do not address as completely as streetcar systems.

  22. For as much taxpayer money they are squandering up there on this inefficient and ugly mode of transport, why not subsidize Pearl residents purchase of mopeds, scooters and pogo sticks, bikes, skateboards etc? Even WALKING is better than streetcar that is so slow you can almost always outwalk them if you walk fast enough! For the disabled send a radio cab to transport them. If things keep going the way they are there will be nothing but slow streetcars completely clogging the streets of Portland and people won’t be able to get anywhere around these traffic obstructions. Alternates to streetcars would not only be faster but the asthetics would also improve. The Europeans who are quickly abandoning this 19th century technology are probably laughing at Portland’s folly in their attemps to become chic, sophisticated and “European”.

  23. ugly mode of transport

    That’s objectivity for you.

    The Europeans who are quickly abandoning this 19th century technology

    Evidence? There’s new tram lines going in all over Europe.

  24. I am wondering about the streetcar turns in front of the Burlington at 10th/Lovejoy, how much sidewalk space will this take up. I do see that a traffic island is planned. And also I am wondering about the turn from Lovejoy north onto 10th (for the Northrup Option), what kind of space is there for that turn?

    NW 9th is a major street that crosses the tracks and is a main access road to get to Naito/Front Ave., it would seem to me that this will have to remain 2 way, correct?

    NW 10th by Tanner Springs is one lane plus a bike lane, is this portion of 10th designed to handle a conversion to a 2 lane one way? And how would the streetcar stop at 10th/Marshall effect this turning traffic flow?

    And then what about NW 14th for traffic to access Northrup?

    Also I have to say it is a little odd that Portland of all cities is looking to convert many streets from 2 ways to one ways while the trend nationwide is to convert one ways back to two ways which are widely seen as better for pedestrians and transit users. And one ways are more complicated for both motorists and transit users.

    As for bike lanes, wouldnt it be better to select certain key streets with little auto traffic parallel to major streets to make into bikeways? Like why have the bike lanes on Naito when there is a major off street bike path 100 feet east along the river? Or have bikers use Johnson Street as the main west-east route instead of Lovejoy. Johnson is the street I use when biking between Nob Hill and the Pearl. Obviously bikers can use any street but I say place the bike improvements and lanes on certain key low-auto traffic routes instead of just placing them rather haphazardly on all streets including some bike lanes that are only a few blocks long. For example I dont really understand why such emphasis was made for bikes in SoWa on Bond & Moody with respect to the placement of the streetcar line when there will be a high quality north-south off-street bikeway along the river in short time. Personally I think it would have made more sense to have built the best streetcar alignment in SoWa and build a temporary bike lane maybe even on the empty SoWa sidewalks until the new river pathway opens.

  25. NW 9th is a major street that crosses the tracks and is a main access road to get to Naito/Front Ave., it would seem to me that this will have to remain 2 way, correct?

    Correct.

    As to the bike lane question, there are various types of cyclist and they want different conditions. Many folks prefer quieter streets, but stronger more confident riders often prefer arterial streets that are signalized where they can progress faster.

  26. In general, the Pearl is looking at having more one-way couplets, becoming more of an extension of the downtown grid.

    It seems NW 12th and 13th would be good candidates as well, from Burnside to NW Northrup.

    Long term, maybe we should make space to make NW 23rd and 21st into a couplet as well, Overton and Pettygrove from 12th to 23rd, and maybe Vaughn and Wilson (with a small ramp reconfiguration) after the US-30 exit?

    Not any are really needed today, but keeping them in mind today for future use in 2020 to 2040 might not be a bad idea. If NW keeps growing we should really have plans in place.

  27. Not all couplets are created equal.

    My neighborhood has railed against Everett/Glisan for years.

    To have a ‘good’ couplet you need to have a traffic signal every block so you can provide pedestrian crossing opportunities and regulate speed through progressed signals. It’s the long raceway segments with no traffic control that make some couplets so ugly.

  28. “To have a ‘good’ couplet you need to have a traffic signal every block so you can provide pedestrian crossing opportunities and regulate speed through progressed signals. It’s the long raceway segments with no traffic control that make some couplets so ugly.”

    >>>> Well, Everett Glisan has traffic signals on ALMOST every block. One egregious omissiom is at Everett & 22 Ave.

  29. Well, Everett Glisan has traffic signals on ALMOST every block.

    Except for Glisan at 3rd, 8th, Park, 9th, 13th, 17th, 20th, and 22nd (as you mentioned).

    Except for Everett at 22nd place, 22nd ave (as you mentioned), 20th, Trinity Place, 17th, 15th, 13th, 9th, Park, and 8th.

    So I guess it depends on what your definition of “almost” is.

    (As an aside, it appears that Google Street View, which I used to verify this list, shows that the street view driver may have passed by a group of 3 pedestrians legally waiting to cross Everett at Park.)

  30. I’ve been looking at my street map and need to ask this: Assuming the Eastside streetcar is built, just how important is it to bring it across the bridge?

    Suppose, for example, that the line just ran from the Rose Quarter to OMSI, using the Grand/MLK couplet and turning around somewhere north of Broadway/Weidler.

    You’d lose the 1-seat ride over to downtown. OTOH, we already have a rail connection that crosses the river more centrally – the MAX. The Grand/MLK streetcar crosses Holladay, which is just where the Rose Quarter MAX station is. Riders to downtown could then transfer to the “old” MAX route (Red/Blue Morrison/Yamhill couplet), or the “new” route (Yellow/Green 5th-6th couplet, down the new Mall) which gets them fairly quickly to PSU through the middle of the shopping district.

    You’d lose a possible 1-seat ride between NW/Pearl and the Eastside/Rose Quarter, but a really good bus service across the bridge could mitigate that loss with a lot less expense and hassle.

    And since we’re already talking about a transfer at Hoyt, that would also break the 1-seat ride to downtown, so proposing some other 2-seat solutions doesn’t seem outrageous.

    Limiting the new line to the Eastside would cost significantly less to build, and wouldn’t exclude adding tracks over the bridge at a later date, if ridership and funds warranted. Would it undermine the likely redevelopment on the Eastside?

    (Do we have a good sense yet of the developers who would step forward to do that redevelopment? The Convention Center and the MAX were, IIRC, supposed to catalyze the revitalization of the Rose Quarter, and that hasn’t happened either. Indeed, the developers don’t even want to invest in a decent hotel over there. So I’m a bit skeptical.)

    This scheme of mine is, of course, purely a technical suggestion; newcomer that I am, I figure I’ve missed something critical in the politics, which I’m sure Chris or Bob will be glad to fill in.:-)

    Mike

  31. Well Fred, I guess this answers my earlier question to you about how streetcar extension affects eastside development.

    Consider Weidler and Broadway built up from the Rose Quarter to Lloyd District in Pearl fashion. The direct streetcar connection through the Pearl to NW and downtown should have high demand.

    The Broadway/Weidler couplet, a 3- and 4-lane one-way streets that could use traffic calming devices such as curb extensions which streetcar will require at stations, unlike buses. Will a streetcar line help transform these speedways? Let’s hope so. The entrance to I-5 north is a killer.

    About elimnating the westbound stop between 9th & 10th, the stop at Marshall has good enough access to Union Station. The trainyard is clearly visable from the corner, and 9th is easier to cross at Marshall than at Lovejoy.

Leave a Reply to Bob R. Cancel reply

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