Eastside/Westside Portland…since 1890!


Portland has been trying to tie itself together across the Willamette River for a long time. East Portland, Albina, Sellwood and St Johns were separate cities until voters approved mergers in the years between 1890 and 1915. Geography drives this…its tough to expand to the west over mountain range with heights over 1,000 feet and only a handful of passes (Cornell Rd., Burnside, Canyon Rd., Slavin Rd). But the River is a challenge as well…wide, deep and swift…only Pittsburgh comes to mind when I try to think of American cities that span large rivers (OK, New York too), and the model of how to do this is Frankfurt am Main…but more of that later. To make matters worse, to get anywhere on the opposite side of the Willamette in Portland, there is not just the River, but also a freeway and a rail line that makes the crossing feel twice as long.

Things started with the bridges of course, but the first effort to establish a “second downtown” or to extend the City’s downtown to the eastside was Ralph Lloyd’s vision. A wealthy California oilman, he started buying property on the inner NE side, proposing in the 20’s a grand hotel. The Depression killed that, but later a plan was hatched for a new civic center, which also came to nothing. The first “stake” on the eastside was Memorial Coliseum, approved by voters in the 50’s, and sited by City Council in the South Auditorium Urban Renewal Area (more accurately Negro Removal Area). Voters rebelled and moved it across the river (it became the City’s second Negro Removal Area, which was later followed by “I-5” and Emmanuel Hosp. “NRAs”…read more about all this in E. Kimbark MacColl’s The Growth of a City).

In 1961 the Lloyd Center Mall opened, offering drive-in shopping and a hotel right off the new Banfield Expressway; downtown retail began to shrink as it was more of an “us & them” in those days than a “we.” In the years since, the Lloyd District has added a few high-rise office towers, public agencies (State Office Building and Metro followed the BPA). More pieces were added in the 80’s…MAX, the Convention Center and in the 90’s the Rose Garden, but its been a long slow process…unlike the almost overnight creation of the Pearl District and so far, South Waterfront.

Will the Eastside Streetcar Loop “close the deal?” Maybe. A lot of “smart money” is betting it will, but there are huge barriers to really tying this town together. First the River…we can’t do much there, but we can improve the approach from the westside by removing the floodwall and replacing it with a sloping lawn/meadow, so at least you can see that there is a river there. The new “improved” Naito Parkway, is actually worse for ped access than the old version due to wider pavement thanks to the so called “freight interests.”

But the real barrier is that once across the River, you are only half way there, you still have the freeway and railroad to cross, a substantial distance if you are on foot. The Eastbank freeway (along with the Marquam Bridge) was a mistake that even the head of the Oregon Transportation Commission recognized the day it was done. (Vancouver…beware of a massive freeway/bridge right next door you may live to regret.) It covers the most valuable land in the City, devalues the second most valuable…on the westbank… cuts east side residents off from the River, and offers westside residents who venture to the River a trashed view…the Marquam approaches cutting through the center of Mt. Hood. Views are valuable, and we have sacrificed many to save someone passing through five minutes.

The only benefit of I-5 along the River is that it keeps the Central Eastside cheap and gritty when combined with the UPRR mainline and the approaches to the bridges, and there is something to be said for that. And assuming that in my lifetime we will never have to two sides of the River within reasonable walking distance of each other, the Streetcar becomes the key…a walk surrogate. It really does go faster than a walk…I ran the other day pretty hard for several blocks in a race to the next stop…it was a tie. Adding Streetcar to the Broadway, and later Burnside Bridges will bring the two sides that much closer; it may be that the Hawthorne Bridge might be better in this regard than the eventual light rail bridge further south, as it would link already active areas on both east and west sides.

So we have an urban fabric that has a huge tear…a river, a freeway, and a rail line…that can’t be sewn with walkable stitch, though we are due for a world-class pedestrian bridge. Streetcar has demonstrated its ability to weave together urban fabric from NW to SoWa, so it’s worth a shot across the River.


93 responses to “Eastside/Westside Portland…since 1890!”

  1. …later a plan was hatched for a new civic center, which also came to nothing.
    One year I had one of those “Portland Remembered” calendars, which had a drawing of the proposed civic center – the caption was “no, this is not a Katz plan.” Does anyone know if this was part of the Robert Moses deal?

    Speaking of Portland History, are there any websites/archives of things like TriMet system maps or the predecessor, Rose City Transit? (Yes, I know about the trolley history sites.) I hear so much about how ridership of the latter was extremely low and service kept being cut, but I’ve never seen anything about how things stacked up for someone who was trying to use it at the time.

  2. The R. Moses civic center plan was defeated by voters in 1948; it called for a formal collection of buildings pretty much where they are now…around the three plaza blocks.
    I once saw a beautiful full color 1918 streetcar system map at the offices of OTAK in LO; I requested a print, but never got one.
    The Oregon Historical Society may have old PTC route information from the 50’s and 60’s; TriMet should have an archive as well, but I don’t know.
    I just remember riding the Blue Buses to downtown from Multnomah for 15 cents.

  3. The proposed Eastside Streetcar is wanted by elitists living in the Pearl District so they can bypass downtown and have a free ride over to Lloyd Center while passing off their own transportation costs on to someone else. This is the same welfare mentality bicyclists depict and demonstrate when wrangling for more personal benefit infrastructure with somebody else paying the picking up the tab. Building and operating more snail rail in Portland is just another way to extort money from the public for the cocky few while at the same time being a barrier to other traffic worsening congestion and the byproducts of congestion on city arterials that are used by an often silent majority of citizens and motorists.

    Some people must think Portland should have a barrier wall built around it with restricted entry points in the same manner Swan Island is surrounded by a mote. The transportation system in Portland is not just for Portlanders, it is part of larger regional template that must not only allow traffic to flow in and around Portland, but also through Portland. Since I-5 is the primary North-South West Coast regional corridor, it obviously carries much of the through traffic. Therefore, for better connectivity all around, the priority needs to be the widening of this freeway to remove any of the barriers and bottlenecks, including the one near the Rose Quarter.

    Additionally, areas of the city that have high volumes of motor freight and/or other traffic must have more than access point. A prime example is Swan Island with the barrier of water all around it. The only roadway access point is Going Street. All the freight traffic from the multitude of motor freight carriers located on this isolated piece of ground spills on to I-5 and creates an undue amount of slow moving barrier congestion for everybody using the highway, including the motor freight carriers themselves. What is needed is a direct connection to the Westside and Highway 30 so that trucks do not have to access I-5 or go through St Johns to get there. Furthermore, a roadway connection directly to Northwest Portland, the Pearl District and even downtown from Swan Island could also be used as a bypass for all motorists thereby knocking down barriers and relieving congestion on some of the other Willamette River bridges.

    In reality, the proposed Eastside Streetcar is a toy designed line the pockets of wealthy developers and adjacent property owners, some of whom serve on and directly control/motivate the streetcar board, and to carry a few elitists that will financially support those rhetorical politicians propagating for this full sized Lionel train set to be built. Obviously the people promoting this latest version of a tram on wheels want their cake, their castle, mote, drawbridge and personal transportation all at the expense of and financed on the backs of taxpayers. Should it be built, they are selfishly instituting a never ending and reoccurring barrier of debt for the future generations of Portlanders, today’s children and beyond, that will be endlessly paying for this extravagant scamming less than efficient boondoggle.

  4. When Lloyd Center first opened up it was then considered the largest shopping mall in the U.S.

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,869772,00.html

    I used to live near Lloyd Center and I consider it to be the best shopping mall in Oregon. The prices are more reasonable than others and it doesn’t have the “hoity toity” atmosphere that exists in Pioneer Square and Washington Square. If you go down the stairs near the Dollar Tree you can still see the Newberry’s Store Front, it’s a time capsule of sorts.

  5. I am convinced that automobiles are an invading alien species gradually evolving self-actualization and determined to exterminate humanity, effectively enslave a small ‘elite’ remainder for unavoidable organic purposes, and turn planet Earth into a robotic homeland! Our only hope is to build transportation systems built on rails with separated power sources so that essential transporation for people and goods can be conducted sensably. Humanity’s survival is up to grassroots movements of average joes and janes to turn back this invasion of alien machines!

    “Open the pod door, Hal.”

    “I can’t do that, Dave.”

  6. Funny you should mention that, we just re-watched 2001 this weekend.

    (Followed by “Being There”, which has a stunning number of 2001 crossover moments.)

  7. As more and more Swan Island employees switch to transit, rideshare and, yes, bicycling, freight movement becomes all that easier. 2 SOVs = 1 Semi… reducing single occupancy vehicles by offering employees real choices for their commute is the simplist, lowest cost, solution to keeping freight moving on Swan Island and, indeed, in the region.
    One of the regular bike commuters to Swan Island is the Senior VP for Engeering and Research at Daimler Trucks (formerly Freightliner).
    Lloyd District has been even more successful in improving access by all modes, eliminating the need to spend some $60M on parking structures.
    I think if you look at who rides Streetcar, it is about as varied a group of folks as you can find in this town.

  8. …a direct connection [from Swan Island] to the Westside and Highway 30 so that trucks do not have to access I-5 or go through St Johns to get there…

    Wow, it’s not often that anything reasonable comes out of TP’s comments, but this actually makes some sense. Unforunately, it’s buried in the usual pre-packaged rants. I wonder if the feasibility of such a crossing has ever been evaluated. Anyone know?

  9. Watch out what you wish for. Such a connection to US 30 would quickly be overrun with commuters from Columbia County who already make Willamette Blvd nasty. Swan Island’s roads are congested only by folks who work here, not by people cutting through, and its a plus. As more and more Swan Islanders leave their cars at home, freight has fewer and fewer problems getting to and from I-5.
    Now if we can get some SOVs off I-5 and on to transit and bikes; the obvious low cost fix.
    BTW…Waud Bluff Trail is a “made path” on an old service road which crosses an active rail line. The City is building an all weather trail with bridge over the RR line; expected to open in 2009.

  10. Such a connection to US 30 would quickly be overrun with commuters from Columbia County

    Why do you think there are so many commuters from Columbia County (and Clark County)? Could it be because of LOWER HOUSING PRICES that have priced these people out of Multnomah, Washington and Clackamas Counties?

    Let’s see, I can still buy a decent home in St. Helens for less than $200K. $200K in Portland will buy me a condo.

    3 bedroom house with yard? Or 2 bedroom condo? If I’m a family with kids, the decision gets very easy to make. To most people, the cost of a car is already sunk, and most mortgage bankers won’t say “I’ll give you another $150K in financing at IF you get rid of your car…”

  11. Let’s see, I can still buy a decent home in St. Helens for less than $200K. $200K in Portland will buy me a condo.

    ***Does this mean that you are moving to St. Helens? Just think–you won’t have to ride(or complain) about the #12…***

    [Moderator: Italics added for clarity.]

  12. Erik: You can buy houses in North Portland (20 minutes from downtown by bicycle, much closer than St Helens or Vancouver) with 3 bedrooms and a yard for $200k, and you’ve been able to for the last year that I’ve been watching you complain about housing prices in Portland…

    Smooth Operator: Put your quotes in italics like this: <i>This text is italic</i>

  13. Erik, Matthew is right. They may not be in Irvington, but Portland has plenty of fine 200K houses on 5000 sf lots with yards and garages. As someone who only recently became a potential homeowner, I was pleasantly surprised to see how many there are. And they’re not likely to get more expensive any time soon.

  14. I agree that cut-through traffic would be a major pitfall for a Swan Island bridge. I suppose it would have to include tolling to regulate demand, possibly exempting Swan Island businesses who might have to pay for part of the local match anyway.

    Whatever the mitigation, isn’t there merit to providing the direct connection to US 30, thereby avoiding I-5 and St. Johns, two places we have too many trucks already? It does seem like could this substantially benefit the industrial area, as well as provide a relief valve for the Fremont Bridge.

  15. St Johns has a lot of trucks already, but the bridge isn’t even close to capacity, so… And I have to wonder how many of those trucks are actually from Swan Island, there is a lot more truck traffic from Rivergate area than from Swan Island, and those trucks are are going to continue to use the St Johns bridge except when what they really want is to get on I-5 anyways. And that is kind of the point: there just isn’t much up highway 30, most of the population (and industry and everything else) is East of Swan Island (and the St Johns bridge,) which is why they are trying to get on I-5 in the first place…

    Not that I’m opposed to another bridge between St Johns and Broadway, (if they did it right it would cut 10 minutes off my commute,) but I can see why they haven’t built it yet.

  16. There has been some long range thought to a “freight only” bridge connecting Columbia Blvd to US 30; that would make more sense to me.
    Truck counts recently done on I-5 indicate that use is relatively low in the northbound peak…logistics folks take note of the congestion. It could be that things on I-5 will get worse for freight when the Delta/Lombard widening is done…congestion will shift south, slowing access at ramp meters at Columbia, Going and Greeley.
    re housing costs in N/NE Portland. While they have gone up a lot in the last run up, they were very low to begin with. There is a lot of good housing stock and lots of programs for income qualified folks to get into home ownership.
    People generally buy further out as prices are less, but should their choice drive public policy? Should we allow more traffic thru the neighborhoods that are closer, making those who made, in my view, a wiser choice pay the price?
    Busy roads and freeways typically depress property values; when the Eastbank freeway is removed, property values along the river will skyrocket…a big benefit for City/County/Schools property taxes.

  17. So wait… they’re gonna build this stupid bridge…

    Then get rid of the east bank freeway?

    I think if they build the bridge that solidifies the idea that the east side freeway will NEVER go away. The city definitely does NOT need the extra traffic and is even LESS likely for expansion than the eastside freeway.

  18. I-405 may have the capacity to handle I-5 traffic. Removing I-5 on the Eastbank isn’t as much a problem for thru-traffic as it is for eastside access.

    If the Marquam could be designated as access to I-84 and the southeast, and similarly, if I-5 south of the Fremont bridge were designated as access to I-84 and the northeast, the section of I-5 on the eastbank between the Rose Quarter and the Morrison Bridge could be removed, I think. New access ramps to I-5 north would be needed, and from the Morrison Bridge, new access ramps to the Marquam Bridge would become possible. It would still be a spagetti mess, but with less impact on the riverbank, and the stretch between the Burnside and the Hawthorne Bridges would still be a freeway. Relocating I-5 into a tunnel beneath SE 7th is probably better a better idea, but is it possible? Relocating the UPRR mainline into a tunnel beneath Grand is another idea for opening up the Eastside to redevelopment.

    Relocate the UPRR mainline under Grand Ave. Tear down both Hawthorne and Morrison viaducts. Elevate the eastbank freeway and access ramps above everything. That was actually ODOT’s first idea after all, back in the 1950’s. Hmmm.

  19. The biggest impediment to removal of the eastbank freeway is connecting I-84 to the Sunset Hwy and downtown. I-405 could actually serve most of the thru traffic on I-5 with some additional lanes and ramp revisions.

    The problem is accomodating all that east-west thru traffic, which would be re-routed over the Fremont Bridge, including sections of I-405 and I-5. This could drive the need for more lanes, although fortunately the Fremont Bridge is probably wide enough, at 8 lanes. Additionally, the traffic between downtown and I-84 uses the Morrison Bridge ramps. If you maintain these connections, you only end up removing 9 or 10 blocks of riverfront freeway – about 40% of it – and a reviled bridge. Better than nothing, but a lot of money for a limited gain.

  20. People generally buy further out as prices are less, but should their choice drive public policy?

    The inverse question is, should the choice of developers to build expensive, unaffordable housing and decimate affordable housing be public policy?

    Unfortunately public policy has fully supported the removal of affordable housing, while increasing the demand for low wage employees. Therefore, if those who live in the Pearl District continue to demand Starbucks baristas get paid only $8.50 an hour, Rite Aid clerks get paid $7.85 an hour, and so on, the it must be public policy to make sure that those employees can get to where they can afford to live, and to work. Further because of our established public policy there is zero interest in investing in TriMet’s bus service that provides the greatest geographical reach of the transit modes (Streetcar certainly doesn’t provide access to affordable housing) these folks have no choice BUT to drive a privately owned, single occupant vehicle – because of public policy.

    It would seem to make more sense that our public policy:

    1. Provides incentives to develop affordable housing,
    2. Provides incentives to support mass transit of all types – not just more Streetcar,
    3. Does not provide tax breaks to wealthy developers who can easily afford to build their condo units which are marketed solely to the rich,
    4. Spreads affordable housing throughout the Portland region, including in S.W. Portland, downtown, inner Eastside – in addition to North Portland,
    5. Ensures that quality mass transit is available to all Portlanders, even if that form of mass transit is a bus.

  21. St. Johns–especially downtown St Johns–would be heavenly if an alternate truck bridge was built connecting the Rivergate area with Hwy. 30. That section of N Ivanhoe between the bridge and N St. Louis would no longer be an exhaust-filled choke of blight.

  22. HEY ERIK!!

    you made the google blog alert:

    ********************************
    Erik Halstead on Eastside/Westside Portland…since 1890!
    Further because of our established public policy there is zero interest in investing in TriMet’s bus service that provides the greatest geographical reach of the transit modes (Streetcar certainly doesn’t provide access to affordable …
    Portland Transport Comments – http://portlandtransport.com/
    *********************************************

  23. Just speaking the truth.

    I should add that it was Portland’s public policy for decades to annex nearby unincorporated communities with the full intent of providing public services, which means Portland’s public policy IS to provide equal services within all of its city limits – including Lents, Parkrose, St. Johns, and Far Southwest – as it does in Downtown. Portland can simply relieve itself of those duties by de-annexing these outer regions, and thus be freed from having to maintain its transportation infrastructure.

    Same is true for Metro – if they don’t want to plan for transportation needs in Forest Grove, Troutdale or Wilsonville – simply retract from those communities. And same with TriMet (replace Wilsonville with Sherwood).

    What does this mean for those who choose to live in Columbia County, or Yamhill County, or Marion County (or to a lesser, but often cited extent, Hood River County)? Well, they are all within Oregon, and are connected by Oregon Department of Transportation maintained highways. If ODOT doesn’t want to maintain those highways ODOT can remove those areas from the state, or the State of Oregon can make a decision that it is not in the transportation business and shut down ODOT.

    While a new bridge over the Willamette sounds interesting, keep in mind that any bridge over the Willamette must be either a lift bridge (usually discouraged) or a high bridge to clear the oceangoing ships that enter the Willamette harbor. So a simple bridge now becomes expensive – add to that Portland’s insistence that any such object must be made “purdy” and you’ve added another $10M to the project. Add bike lanes and another $4-5 million. Might as well just start a ferry service.

    The existing public policy seems to be “let’s include everyone for tax purposes, but when it comes to distributing those tax revenues let’s only funnel them to politically connected developers and pet projects that return the favor by way of political donations”. As a result downtown has gotten all kinds of investment, while outer regions (the working blue class areas of Portland) still have unpaved streets (that even lack a maintained, graded gravel surface) akin to a remote logging road in the Coast Range.

    We make up arguments that “Westside and Eastside Portland” are disconnected yet there are numerous bridges that connect the two. I-5 and the UPRR are not impermeable walls. Ugly, fine. I suggest anyone who thinks otherwise might want to take a trip up to Tacoma to see how Tacoma transformed an impermeable wall (a four track BNSF railroad mainline often blocked by slow moving, switching trains, and the I-705 freeway) into a tourist attraction and a pedestrian friendly area. But should it be public policy to make something “purdy” (that is of questionable “need”) while we have actual “needs” elsewhere within the taxing district? Is it safe for some of Portland’s residents to have to wait additional minutes for fire, police or medic response because their streets are “unimproved”? Is it safe that a large number of Portland’s bus stops aren’t even on sidewalks – nevermind the lack of shelters or other amenities that are somehow “required” for a Streetcar or MAX stop?

    I’ve cited often that if TriMet (and the other governmental agencies) doesn’t want to serve me, that’s fine. Just stop collecting my taxes. But it is their public policy to collect my taxes; therefore it is implied that their public policy MUST be to serve me in relation to the taxes received. Since Portland doesn’t charge less to live in Lents, Portland needs to step up to the place. Commissioner Sam should be ashamed of his own hypocrisy that he is the “Transportation” commissioner, yet uses his title to pad the pockets of developers over the urgent needs of his constituents.

    (By the way, isn’t it Multnomah County that wants to get all but out of the transportation business?)

  24. ****The existing public policy seems to be “let’s include everyone for tax purposes, but when it comes to distributing those tax revenues let’s only funnel them to politically connected developers and pet projects that return the favor by way of political donations”.*****

    Erik-

    Not only is this the EXISTING public policy but it has ALWAYS AND FOREVER been the public policy of not only the good ole US of A but every freaking place on planet earth!

  25. ****The existing public policy seems to be “let’s include everyone for tax purposes, but when it comes to distributing those tax revenues let’s only funnel them to politically connected developers and pet projects that return the favor by way of political donations”.*****

    Erik-

    Not only is this the EXISTING public policy but it has ALWAYS AND FOREVER been the public policy of not only the good ole US of A but every freaking place on planet earth!

  26. ****The existing public policy seems to be “let’s include everyone for tax purposes, but when it comes to distributing those tax revenues let’s only funnel them to politically connected developers and pet projects that return the favor by way of political donations”.*****

    Erik-

    Not only is this the EXISTING public policy but it has ALWAYS AND FOREVER been the public policy of not only the good ole US of A but every freaking place on planet earth!

  27. Since Portland doesn’t charge less to live in Lents, Portland needs to step up to the place.

    Seems to me that a lot of transit dollars, planning, and urban renewal are going on in Lents right now.

  28. Al,

    Google Alerts are something you configure for yourself with your own search parameters and keywords. Without seeing how you’ve got it set up, I can’t tell you why Google notifies you of some stuff and not others. Google also only does checks periodically.

    If you want to stay in more-frequent touch with this Blog, I suggest you get an RSS reader (or a browser with one built-in) and subscribe to our comments RSS feed.

  29. What does this mean for those who choose to live in Columbia County, or Yamhill County, or Marion County (or to a lesser, but often cited extent, Hood River County)?

    I can’t speak for Columbia or Hood River counties but here in Marion county there are plenty of ways to get to Portland…..

    1. Amtrak
    2. Greyhound
    3. THe Cherriots 1x bus which connects with TriMet 96

  30. LOL!!

    How’s this for funny, I got covered on the google blog alerts for covering Erik on the google blog alerts!
    ———————————

    AL M on Eastside/Westside Portland…since 1890!
    Erik Halstead on Eastside/Westside Portland…since 1890! Further because of our established public policy there is zero interest in investing in TriMet’s bus service that provides the greatest geographical reach of the transit modes …
    Portland Transport Comments – http://portlandtransport.com/
    ———————————-

    (and I think its cool when my stuff shows up on the alerts by the way)

  31. Seems to me that a lot of transit dollars, planning, and urban renewal are going on in Lents right now.

    OK, Bob, I’ll bite.

    Other than the MAX line, what specifically is TriMet doing to improve transit access throughout Lents and S.E. Portland?

    The last time I checked, Portland extends out to about 162nd Avenue and well south of Burnside, so there’s a large area to cover.

  32. Erik, I thought your comments applied to more than just TriMet and more than just transit. In that context, for starters, check out the Lents Town Center Project Map (PDF format).

    Note that several of the projects relate to sidewalks, street improvements, and lighting, all of which enhance access to transit. Also, the existing #14 bus line provides frequent service to Lents and is among the busiest bus lines, especially on a boardings-per-route-mile basis.

  33. Also see this Portland Tribune article from a year ago:
    http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=117071548839202000

    Excerpt:

    The nearly abandoned town center is now the focus of an urban renewal effort led by the Portland Development Commission, which has been steadily pouring money into the Lents neighborhood since the City Council designated it an Urban Renewal Area in 1998.

    The neighborhood is earmarked for $75 million over 15 years. Of that, about $46 million remains to be spent – and the projects finally are falling into place.

    Up until now, most of the urban renewal dollars have been spent on infrastructure projects such as street repairs, sidewalks, parking spaces, lighting and improvements to the neighborhood’s seven parks.

    Twenty-five percent of the money has gone toward affordable housing projects and homeownership assistance programs.

  34. TIF is never meant to be a replacement for regular city and SDC funding for road maintenance and construction. But, in the case of Lents, we’re actively using TIF as leverage for other funds.

    There has been quite a bit of transportation infrastructure improvement in Lents including $5 million of TIF used for light rail. And, there will be more as more development projects are completed in the Town Center and the MTIP funding we received in the 2007 process is put to work.

    The common complaint in Lents, though is about underdeveloped or undeveloped roadways in the residential areas. (There is a fine example right next to my house). One of the big issues is 104th Avenue between Powell and Harold, which lacks adequate pedestrian facilities. In small portions, here and there, unpaved road issues have been addressed by LIDs in the URA as well as piece by piece improvements as properties are redeveloped. Unfortunately, the residents in Lents often lack the resources to take advantage of LID programs, and the city and URA funds are also overtaxed by transportation improvements. I think the last estimate we got for the 104th project (with some attention to 103rd as well) was around $26 million dollars. Even with TIF, that’s well beyond our reach, unless we want to start cutting other projects that are really better investments in the long run.

  35. I suggest anyone who thinks otherwise might want to take a trip up to Tacoma to see how Tacoma transformed an impermeable wall (a four track BNSF railroad mainline often blocked by slow moving, switching trains, and the I-705 freeway) into a tourist attraction and a pedestrian friendly area.

    For those of us that haven’t seen this area, can you give us a little background on this? How did they address this? What are the key elements that made it successful, in your opinion? What elements could we apply to the river/I-5/UPRR corridor?

  36. The problem is that Portland only did half the job in the 70’s when it removed Harbor Drive.
    The more travel options across the Willamette, etc., the better if we want the River to be a “uniter” and not a divider.
    Frankfurt am Main is a great example of what we could be…while Portland has a freeway, they have a row of half a dozen excellent museums across the Main River from downtown, with two pedestrian bridges, four vehicle bridges (two with streetcars,) and an U-bahn and S-bahn subways.
    re affordable housing. All URAs are required to set aside 30% for that; the three largest URAs (in land area) are Interstate, Gateway and Lents, all in eastside neighborhoods. In order to finance affordable housing with TIF (Tax Increment Funding), URAs require market rate/privately financed housing.

  37. Note that several of the projects relate to sidewalks, street improvements, and lighting, all of which enhance access to transit. Also, the existing #14 bus line provides frequent service to Lents and is among the busiest bus lines, especially on a boardings-per-route-mile basis.

    Right now the layover area for the two bus lines in the area is directly under I-205.

    Specifically – what improvements will be made to improve the BUS service, making BUS service more welcoming in this area as opposed to “waiting under a bridge”? Will the bus stops in this area be fully equipped with decent bus shelters that are well lit and include Transit Tracker displays like the MAX stops?

    Will bus stops be sized appropriately for their demand, or will they be the standard “two body” stops that often are too small to be usable by transit patrons?

    Will bus shelters be deployed throughout Lents on the various bus routes, and sidewalks improved on the bus routes?

    Or are we “putting our eggs in one basket” by building a MAX line, and ignoring the needs of those who need to get past a MAX station? Remember that Lents isn’t getting a Park & Ride Lot, so intermodal connections are far more important than, say, Orenco.

    The map you linked to does not provide any of the information you suggest.

  38. Erik,

    The specifics haven’t been hashed out yet, but the stops for the 14 in the town center will be improved through an MTIP grant, the stops for the 10 Harold may be improved when the 92nd & Harold site is redeveloped, and the stops adjacent to the freeway are on the radar, both through the safe/sound/green program and possibly may be folded in with pedestrian improvements when the ODOT property is redeveloped into a “gateway” art/landscape architecture project.

    Overall, any improvement to the pedestrian environment in the town center will drastically improve the conditions for transit riders.

  39. TIF sounds like a totalitarian scheme. People should just pay their own way and let the free market rule. This ploy would make Castro, Putin, Milosevic and Breshnev proud.

  40. Cora,

    Thanks for your insightful post, however this begs the question:

    Why are bus improvements done as an afterthought? Bus improvements need to be an INTEGRAL PART OF TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS, not an after-thought.

    These plans should have been finalized, in AutoCAD files, and budgeted three years ago. And should be under construction RIGHT NOW.

    Once again, TriMet shows its true colors when it comes towards proper investment towards the transit system.

  41. Erik,

    There’s a simple answer when it comes to street and pedestrian facility improvements…unless it’s wrapped into a capital project, making street improvements isn’t within TriMet’s jurisdiction. They do, however, address the need for street and pedestrian improvements in their TIP, have staff that actively advocates for transit accessibility for pedestrians, and make improvements when they have the available capital and ability to coordinate.

    But, the type of widespread aggressive transit access improvements that you describe are really the responsibility of PDOT and ODOT respectively. The county may be involved in some cases as well. Should the capital improvement funds become available, based on what they outline in their TIP, I’m sure that TriMet will not hesitate to provide any information and support to accomplish that sort of project…along with funds if it’s feasible.

  42. But TriMet clearly makes improvements that are outside of its jurisdiction – TriMet frequently funds projects that are associated with, but not directly a part of, MAX lines.

    For example, when MAX was built on East Burnside, who paid for all of the new sidewalks, crosswalks, crosswalk signals, traffic signals, etc., on Burnside? Same is true for North Interstate?

    At Orenco, who paid for street improvements at MAX crossings, including accesses to/from park-and-ride lots, and associated street and sidewalk works?

    Further, if we are to clearly define that streets/sidewalks are a PDOT/ODOT responsibility than transit is clearly a TriMet responsibility – what in the world is Portland doing with the Streetcar which is clearly a transit function? This goes to show that the line is gray at best, and that there is certainly valid precedent that agencies will cross over jurisdictional lines if it is in their best interest (another perfect example is that TriMet has their own snowplows and garbage trucks – yet TriMet is not in the road maintenance or garbage hauling business, either. TriMet also employs landscapers but is not in the landscaping business. And TriMet is deploying wi-fi internet access on WES, yet TriMet is not a telecommunications provider.)

    However bus stops are clearly a role for TriMet to take an active role in. That means TriMet needs to be aggressive in designing new generation bus stations/stops/shelters that encourage transit ridership, and not play the “it’s not my job” card. If bus service – which includes the function of waiting for a bus – is not TriMet’s job, then Fred Hansen needs to propose TriMet get out of the business and turn it over to a more capable entity.

    If busses are simply an extension of the roadway/pedestrian system and nothing more, then what is TriMet’s role?

  43. Erik, the examples you are giving regarding the Max/Streetcar are examples of the aforementioned capital projects/imrpovements. They have identified funding, which is generally well beyond what TriMet has available for stop improvements in their general fund. (ie much of the Streetcar improvements are funded by LIDs or TIF, and the greater percentage of funds for Max construction are federal.) It has to do with how one time funding is allocated for individual projects.

    Unfortunately, regular bus service is an ongoing operating cost, and has some ongoing capital cost for replacement buses, but as far as infrastructure improvements are concerned, that is a function of PDOT/ODOT/the county. They could fund and contract with TriMet to be project manager for a one time capital project to improve bus stops and the pedestrian ROW. That would be the point at which TriMet could play a role in that sort of project…should they choose to take it on. Of course, that would require that the city eh hem raise a significant amount of funding for repairs, maintenance and improvements.

  44. The city has invested in improvements in transit stops, sidewalks pedestrian crossings, lighting and signals along streets such as Alberta (#72), Sandy (#12), and Hawthorne (#14 – also serves Lents). I don’t know the actual total net increase in shelters, but I’ve seen new shelters go in.

  45. Erik,
    It really sounds like you’re criticizing the federal funding process that TriMet works within. The feds fund a large chunk of these large projects; local dollars are leveraged in a big way to implement. It tends to be easier to justify spending local money that receives a match than it does without. The feds are less likely to be interested in minor upgrades such as those you are advocating for, regardless of their merit. Continuing to blame TriMet for everything doesn’t really accomplish much.

    Despite the limitations, there is actually a lot of investment in bus transit – but it’s incremental. With thousands of bus stops, it is a huge effort to upgrade even a small percentage of them. Of course, it’s a different order-of-magnitude than the investment in light rail, but you’re back to the federal participation in that one. Partly, it’s the regional question of where we spend our local money: if it can return 3x as much it’s hard to argue against going for federal projects.

  46. I’ve seen a lot of bus stop improvements: Bulb out, bus pads, and signal replacements (to support bus prioritization,) have gone in all over the city in support of buses. Yes, the city is paying for those, but the city actually kicks in some money to Light Rail construction as well, (for instance, Portland is kicking in $3.5M towards helping reconstruct the transit mall.)

  47. One of my biggest concerns with the eastside streetcar is not that it is a toy, that it will destroy the many qualities I love about central eastside industrial. First, the small business owners and other cheap, however excessively accessible hardware businesses (hippo and winks come to mind but also places like andy and bax and the tile store i frequent on grand). Also i am concerned about nightlife, rotture, plan b, east end (former noir) crush and holocene all depend upon the light industrial nature of the district to help them not have to deal with noise complaints as much (the only case were i have heard major complaint about noise in that area is acme (now plan b) getting slapped early last year with noise complaints). If portland wants to be a art/creative center it needs to maintain it’s nightlife. A bustling nightlife will help to continue our momentum of attracting young creatives to this city, thus brings young talent and strengthening our art/cultural signifcance, much has been said about the importance of the portland art renassiance, we should keep that going. We all have seen what has happened to stark street, give it 5-10 years and that will be oldtown when the pearl continues it’s cancerous growth. So where does that put the central eastside with streetcar, if we allow major development to move into that area then we loose the nightlife, condo owners loves grittiness however don’t want to hear it which is a fact of life with nightlife. Thus that puts portland at two choices, not develop the central eastside preserve and push development of nightlife in defiance to the overpowering control of the olcc or change our noise ordinances which is not going to happen. I feel the master plan of the eastside streetcar is to create a new pearl on the eastside, further the same with proposals to bury the 5 and UP mainnline and to continue redevelopment of the waterfront (which i support the conservertation of our wildlife and being aware of enviromental impacts but i am not in support of turnig the eastiside waterfront another park paradise)

  48. Not to worry…most of the CES industrial district is zoned for employment/industrial. The reason Streetcar is going up and down MLK/Grand is that its several block wide corrdior is the only portion between the River and 12th Avenue where housing/commercial can be sited.
    And not much chance, for all my wishful talk, of either I-5 or the UPRR disappearing or going underground any time soon. so relax.
    North of Burnside is where Streetcar should have the greatest impacts and where there are acres of vacant lots, parking lots, etc begging for more intense development…which puts more folks on the street and creates a actual city instead of the pseudo-city which what we have now.

  49. Well here is the conflict. east end which not a significant noise producer as many IS on mlk holocene is a few blocks up from that on morrison & 10th it is actually close to some housing. Plan b is smack dab between 12th/11th couplet mlk/grand belmont and hawthorne. Rotture is the least suspectible down near stark and 2nd. These and few other venues all are within what i would consided hte central eastside, the problem with zoning is it can be changed, it just creates a roadblock for developeres not a concrete wall. Just becuase it is zoned for light industrial now does not mean it will in the future see the development, also rental prices don’t work in a vaccuum. because there would be development on mlk/grand and higher would mean it is highly likely the surrounding area would increase in value. we know for a fact that nightlife venues, especially ones that push the artistic side of the world need low rents to survive. further there is a small but strong eastside art scene (launchpad/EGG one of them just off mlk, audiocinema being one below mlk but in the shadow of that new office complex right next to the hawthorne bridge. will we just continue to push artist and creatives to the edges of our cities, dosen’t seem like the greatest idea for a city priding itself in smart growth, smart transportation planning and being a creative class magnet. the central eastside right now is acting as womb and where to next? well we have the industrial area stretching from division down past mcloughlin, but wouldn’t it be nicer to have it all focused on one area that is very accesible already versus out in area less accessible.

  50. I beg to disagree.

    Bus improvements, including both new busses as well as bus stop improvements, are covered under Section 5309 and 5318 FTA grants.

    (refer to http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grants/grants_financing_3557.html )

    I’m sorry but this IS TriMet’s fault. TriMet COULD apply for grants under this program. TriMet CHOOSES not to.

    Why not?

    When King County Metro went out and purchased over 250 hybrid-electric articulated busses, it put together a Section 5309 grant that when approved, paid for the standard 80% federal share of the bus – AND paid 100% of the difference between the cost of the hybrid bus and a straight diesel bus!!! In short, King County got 250 more expensive hybrid-electric articulated busses, at the same LOCAL cost of a diesel bus.

    Can any of you TriMet supporters claim that TriMet has effectively leveraged federal dollars towards bus improvements in the last ten years? I would like specific examples:

    1. How has TriMet used federal dollars towards bus stop improvements?
    2. How has TriMet used federal dollars towards transit center improvements?
    3. How has TriMet used federal dollars towards new bus purchases, which include adding capacity?

    Despite the limitations, there is actually a lot of investment in bus transit – but it’s incremental.

    OK.

    In each year 1997-2008, how much has TriMet spent on bus investment, and MAX investment?

    I found in one particular year that TriMet spent $10 on MAX improvements for each $1 spent on bus improvements.

    It’s no wonder that bus riders are declining, when bus ridership is 2/3rds of TriMets’ ridership, but TriMet only values their ridership at 1/10th that of a MAX rider.

    And in other cities that have properly invested in bus service, their bus ridership has gone up 4-10%. TriMet’s bus ridership went DOWN, two years in a row. This is directly related to TriMet’s lack of investment in the bus system.

  51. I don’t know the actual total net increase in shelters, but I’ve seen new shelters go in.

    Bob this information is very easily identifiable in TriMet’s budget.

    TriMet budgets about 30 new shelters a year.

    According to their Bus Stop Guidelines document (one of the few publicly available documents that is in reference to bus improvements), it states TriMet should add a minimum of 100 shelters per year

    Lets see.

    30 is less than 100.

    30 is less than 1/3rd of 100.

    To maintain service TriMet needs to add 70 more shelters per year (the document came out in 2002, so 2003, plus 2004, plus 2005, plus 2006, plus 2007, plus 2008 is six years.

    Six times 70 is 420 shelters.

    Figure a shelter is going to cost $10,000, with associated improvements to signage, garbage cans, etc.

    That equals $4,200,000. Or, the cost of about one and a half MAX cars.

    This is a no brainer, and every transit advocate in Portland should be standing up against this REGIONAL improvement in bus service. Further by applying for a Section 5309 grant, TriMet’s local cost to implement this is less than $500,000, or about the cost of one articulated bus.

  52. Erik wrote:

    TriMet budgets about 30 new [bus] shelters a year.

    Setting aside for the moment that your original comment mentioned government sources other than TriMet, and that I noted that I was answering in that context …

    The Portland Streetcar, which receives capital funds from sources other than TriMet, has by my count 42 shelters. These shelters are comparable in size to TriMet’s standard bus shelters, although the latest ones do incorporate a higher level of trim and artwork.

    (You’ve previously complained that these streetcar shelters represent a disproportionate investment in rail transit vs. bus transit.)

    The streetcar was gradually expanded over a period of 7 years. That works out to, on average, 6 shelters per year.

    The current MAX system, by my count, has 118 shelters installed over the last 20 years, or about 6 shelters per year. Obviously, MAX shelters are larger than standard bus shelters, but MAX stations are less widely dispersed and server a higher number of boardings per stop on average.

    (Interestingly, the Yellow Line has the highest number of shelters per stop on average.)

    So, for rail, over the past 7 years there are about 12 shelters per year, streetcar and MAX combined.

    As you say, rail represents about a third of the ridership (and there are many people who ride both bus and rail, as you know), and apparently rail gets less than a third of the annual shelter allotment, although it gets much larger shelters on average.

    Further, recent projects like the Yellow Line also installed bus shelters which are comparable in size and trim to rail shelters at most transfer points.

  53. Additionally, you mentioned that bus riders at Foster/I-205 have to wait for the bus under a bridge.

    Please note that multiple MAX stations (such as Skidmore Fountain and Rose Quarter) have patrons sheltered under a bridge or under parking garages or other pre-existing structures. This is not a unique situation for bus riders.

  54. Regarding Seattle’s grant application for hybrid buses, I’m not sure I buy the argument that this project was a benefit for transit. It’s more of an environmental benefit. If we’re talking about improving bus service, I don’t see this as particularly relevant.

    The discussion of shelter provision seems more relevant to me. Will the feds funds capital improvements like pads, benches, shelters, and tracker displays? Are there non-local funding pots for these that TriMet is overlooking? I admit I am not very familiar with all the federal funding opportunities that may exist, and I agree that we should be doing more to provide shelters and other bus stop amenities. I just don’t think we should impair the development of the light rail system, which is important for the region’s long-term mobility, to do so.

    We should be looking for ways to do both.

  55. re CEID development: not only is it zoned for industry/employement, but it is an official “Industrial Sanctuary.” Removing some or all of the CEID from that classification is more than a “roadblock.” It is almost impossible.
    Regardless, the development that has occured in the Pearl and SoWa is the exception, not the rule for Portland. Streetcar will just reinforce the urban character that already exists south of Burnside along the Grand/MLK corridor.
    re Foster bus stops: TriMet’s policy is to space bus stops every three blocks instead of every two in order to keep buses moving, etc.
    re shelters: TriMet has ridership criteria for placing stops; the Swan Island TMA used some initial grant money from Metro to buy three shelters for stops we deemed critical which did not meet these criteria. TriMet installed them at no charge.
    Light rail investment vs bus investment: if you look at ridership numbers, choice riders preference and cost per ride data, light rail is just a better investment of scarce public resources…serving more people at lower cost.

  56. It should be pointed out that the reason Seattle went to hybrids has to do with their version of the bus mall: The downtown tunnel. The dual mode (electric+diesel) buses could operate in electric mode in the tunnel, but a regular diesel bus is too noisy and puts out too much exhaust to operate in an enclosed space like that… That is where the hybrids came it: The hybrids could operate in the tunnel with their engines at idle, cutting the noise and the pollution, at the expense of performance.

    Obviously there are other advantages to hybrids too, and those shouldn’t be overlooked, but Seattle didn’t get a bunch of hybrid buses for those reasons, the reason was the tunnel…

    And so you should ask: What was wrong with the duel modes that they were using in the tunnel already? They were putting light rail in the tunnel, and the wires for the dual modes would have conflicted with the light rail wires, (and that is fixable, but it isn’t easy,) so…

    Now, remember how I said that hybrids could trade pollution and noise for performance? They didn’t have to make that trade off on the dual modes, so in other words Seattle degraded bus service in favor of light rail by buying hybrid buses. Although they managed to “green-wash” it fairly successfully judging by how people are holding it up as an example of “investing in the bus system.”

    This makes our bus mall plan to make buses that are stopped at stops stay stopped while the light rail train next to them clears the intersection seem pretty tame.

  57. The Portland Streetcar, which receives capital funds from sources other than TriMet, has by my count 42 shelters. These shelters are comparable in size to TriMet’s standard bus shelters, although the latest ones do incorporate a higher level of trim and artwork.

    “Higher Level of Trim and Artwork” = MORE MONEY.

    NextBus Displays at each stop = MORE MONEY.

    And that since the City of Portland (and TriMet and Metro) paid for associated sidewalk improvements in conjunction with Streetcar stops but largely refuses to do same for bus stops = MORE MONEY.

    And, Bob, since we’re talking percentages, there are 42 Streetcar shelters. How many Streetcar stops are there? 42. That means 100% of Streetcar stops have a shelter.

    According to TriMet’s Fact Sheet, there are 7,600 bus stops and only 1,050 shelters. Of those shelters, ZERO have Transit Tracker signs.

    Streetcar = 100%.
    Bus = 13% shelters, 0% Transit Tracker signs.

    In comparison, London (UK)’s bus system has 67% of their bus stops equipped with shelters (source: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/london-buses-fact-sheet.pdf )

    The streetcar was gradually expanded over a period of 7 years. That works out to, on average, 6 shelters per year.

    And over the last seven years, how much has bus service been expanded? Ten years? 15 years? 20 years?

    And what is the cost invested upon Streetcar service vs. bus service, outside of shelters? Cost invested in bus service?

    The current MAX system, by my count, has 118 shelters installed over the last 20 years, or about 6 shelters per year. Obviously, MAX shelters are larger than standard bus shelters, but MAX stations are less widely dispersed and server a higher number of boardings per stop on average.

    But do bus stops that have high boardings get shelters that are appropriate for the boarding? Show me a high capacity shelter along a bus line not tied to MAX.

    Further, recent projects like the Yellow Line also installed bus shelters which are comparable in size and trim to rail shelters at most transfer points.

    There was exactly ONE MAX/bus transfer point that received “comparable” shelters; Interstate and Lombard.

    Please note that multiple MAX stations (such as Skidmore Fountain and Rose Quarter) have patrons sheltered under a bridge or under parking garages or other pre-existing structures. This is not a unique situation for bus riders.

    And are those MAX stations comparable to the stop under I-205 for bus patrons? Or does the bus stop have similiar/same amenities as the MAX stops under the bridge?

    It should also be noted that the Skidmore Fountain stop is there for a reason (Saturday Market) – exactly what is the destination underneath I-205? The Rose Quarter stop is there because of the Rose Quarter – what is the destination underneath I-205? Or is there a magical plan to convert the I-205/Foster/Woodstock area into a “destination”?

  58. Regarding Seattle’s grant application for hybrid buses, I’m not sure I buy the argument that this project was a benefit for transit. It’s more of an environmental benefit. If we’re talking about improving bus service, I don’t see this as particularly relevant.

    No, buying a hybrid bus in and of itself doesn’t improve transit; but wasn’t it said by a Metro councilor that light rail for the simple sake of transit in and of itself was not a good use of dollars?

    Portland continually props itself on an environmental pedestal to make itself more “green” than other cities, while it has a diesel burning, soot exhausting bus fleet that it refuses to improve. Cummins actually had to pay for the first batch of exhaust scrubbers; New Flyer actually paid for the two Hybrid busses.

    Portland has nearly 200 busses that are in need of immediate replacement; numerous bus trips are overcapacity and are in need of articulated busses. TriMet could make a huge statement by buying new, hybrid, articulated busses that increase capacity and service, while use less fuel and put out fewer emissions.

    Is the hybrid technology absolutely necessary? No. But why does TriMet own several Toyota Priuses? Why does the City of Portland own Priuses? If it’s not a big deal, why spend $30,000 on a small sedan when you can buy one for $15,000 (a Ford Focus or a Toyota Corolla)? If you can buy the Hybrid for the same price as a straight diesel (as Seattle did), why not – better fuel economy, lower maintenance expense, and great P.R. If the environment is not a big deal, why do we even bother with public transportation at all? Or is this just another example of the “spend at all costs on light rail, but nickel and dime bus service”?

    While Seattle did buy the hybrid bus in part so it could operate in the Metro Tunnel the hybrid busses are in no way exclusive to the tunnel.

    They didn’t have to make that trade off on the dual modes, so in other words Seattle degraded bus service in favor of light rail by buying hybrid buses.

    The benefit of the dual mode ended at the exit to the tunnel (since the tunnel was only used by the long distance busses that weren’t trolley routes; the lines that were trolley routes used surface streets). The benefit of the hybrid bus is point to point, and compared to a dual mode still burns less fuel and has fewer pollutants than a dual mode in diesel mode (especially given the dual modes were built in the early to mid 1980s and hardly meet current EPA regulations). So the argument that Seattle degraded bus service is completely false and baseless, unless one can prove that Seattle is replacing its Trolleybus service with hybrid-electric bus service (which it isn’t, Seattle is continuing to invest and maintain its trolleybus service, has purchased 100 brand new Gillig Phantom trolleybusses in 2002 and completely rebuilt 59 Breda articulated dual-models into straight trolleybusses in 2004-2006.

    In addition to, of course, 274 articulated New Flyer D40s in 1998-2000, 95 30′ Gillig Phantoms in 1999-2000, 395 40′ Gillig Phantoms in 1996-1999, 15 35′ Phantoms in 1997, 30 New Flyer D60LFs in 2004, 213 New Flyer DE60LFs in 2004 and another 22 in 2008, and 100 D40LFs in 2003; plus 100,000 new bus service hours in 2008, 30 new bus routes inaugurated on February 9th, 30,000 new bus service hours in 2007, five BRT corridors, and a May 16, 2007 announcement for 500 new busses.

    What is TriMet’s commitment??????????????

  59. There was exactly ONE MAX/bus transfer point that received “comparable” shelters; Interstate and Lombard.

    Correction, there are TWO, Interstate and Killingsworth, too.

    That still leaves hundreds of TriMet bus stops that are under-equipped.

  60. Light rail investment vs bus investment: if you look at ridership numbers, choice riders preference and cost per ride data, light rail is just a better investment of scarce public resources…serving more people at lower cost.

    Yes, I look at ridership numbers – 2/3rds of Portland’s transit ridership is on the bus.

    Are you saying that “choice riders” simply don’t ride the bus, that every single bus rider in Portland rides the bus because of a lack of choice? (I don’t buy this argument, simply because of the ridership on the 14 and 15 lines.)

    I do look at cost per ride data, and the 72 line is actually profitable for TriMet. Several other heavily used lines come close. If TriMet invested in its bus service, there would be more ridership, and thus less cost per rider.

    And if TriMet wanted to, it could very easily implement ways to reduce the bus operating costs. For example, hybrid busses (uses less fuel, lower maintenance cost). Reduce express runs that run over 50% of their time in non-rev mode; or schedule the express bus so once they end an express trip they make a revenue trip on the same line (i.e. an inbound 94 during the AM rush hour turns as an outbound 12-B); an inbound 99 turns as a 33-M, an inbound 92 turns as a 56.) Use three articulated busses to replace four 40′ busses on select routes. Build more bus amenities to encourage ridership; more riders equals a less per-passenger operating cost (the 72 is profitable for TriMet, for example). Better schedule reliability equals less overtime and less fuel consumption.

  61. “According to TriMet’s Fact Sheet, there are 7,600 bus stops and only 1,050 shelters. Of those shelters, ZERO have Transit Tracker signs.”

    Lombard TC has TT displays at the bus stops, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there were other places as well… I can tell you that they aren’t at Barbur Blvd TC though.

    “so the argument that Seattle degraded bus service is completely false and baseless”

    Uhmm, you make a bunch of points about emissions, which is great, but that ignores my central point: The hybrids have to go slower in the tunnel than the duel modes did, all so that they could put light rail in the tunnel. And if slowing down bus service isn’t degrading it, I don’t know what is…

    As for the dual modes being dirty in diesel mode: A certain other big NW transit agency knows how to take old buses and put new engines in them, extending their lifespan, and cleaning up their emissions at the same time. It is too bad that Seattle neglects their bus fleet so bad that they pollute their city.

    And as for New Flyer “giving” us the hybrids, that was in exchange for some money that they owed us as a result of the warranty on some of their buses. In other words, we actually did pay for the hybrids…

  62. And Seattle’s hybrids actually use MORE fuel than the dual modes, which pretty much makes all your points about emissions untrue.

    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/203509_metro13.html

    “In fact, at times, the New Flyer hybrid articulated buses have gotten worse mileage than the often-maligned 1989 dual-mode Breda buses they are replacing. Yet the hybrid buses cost $200,000 more each than a conventional articulated diesel bus.”

  63. And, Bob, since we’re talking percentages, there are 42 Streetcar shelters. How many Streetcar stops are there? 42. That means 100% of Streetcar stops have a shelter.

    There are 48 streetcar stops. I know for a fact that at least one of these has no shelter whatsoever (SW Moody and Gaines), and several shops share a common shelter at center-island platforms. It’s not 100%.

    I don’t know how often I have to repeat this in this thread, but you’ve been making your complaints about TriMet’s investment but the streetcar was built with significant capital funds which were outside of TriMet.

    According to TriMet’s Fact Sheet, there are 7,600 bus stops and only 1,050 shelters. Of those shelters, ZERO have Transit Tracker signs.

    What are the boardings per route-mile along these lines compared to MAX or the streetcar?

    Zero streetcar shelters have Transit Tracker signs. They use NextBus. A contract which was arrived at outside of TriMet. Portland is putting in money from various sources above and beyond what TriMet would do. Any jurisdiction is free to do this.

    Streetcar = 100%.

    Not quite.

    Bus = 13% shelters, 0% Transit Tracker signs.

    Matthew mentions this later but there are some (a very few at this time, granted) bus stops with Transit Tracker signs. Beyond that, TriMet makes Transit Tracker available to ANY cell phone user.

    And over the last seven years, how much has bus service been expanded?

    Bus Revenue Hours –
    FY 2007: 1,481,460
    FY 2000: 1,443,948
    Increase: 2.6%
    (As I’m sure you know, there have been revenue hour cutbacks in recent years, but nonetheless there is more service now than in 2000.)

    Ten years?

    FY 2007: 1,481,460
    FY 1997: 1,341,564
    Increase: 4.3%

    15 years?

    FY 2007: 1,481,460
    FY 1992: 1,188,802
    Increase: 24.6%

    20 years?

    FY 2007: 1,481,460
    FY 1987: 1,120,632
    Increase: 32.2%

    Show me a high capacity shelter along a bus line not tied to MAX.

    This was not part of your original assertion. Whether or not the bus shelters are connected to MAX projects is irrelevant — the fact is that there has been investment in these bus shelters.

    There was exactly ONE MAX/bus transfer point that received “comparable” shelters; Interstate and Lombard.

    I see you have already partially corrected yourself on this point. But there are other transit centers with large bus shelters, including Rose Quarter (which has no MAX Blue/Red line shelters at all), Gateway, and others.

    [Regarding MAX stops under bridges and parking garages] And are those MAX stations comparable to the stop under I-205 for bus patrons? Or does the bus stop have similar/same amenities as the MAX stops under the bridge?

    The MAX station under the 10th Ave parking garage has zero amenities. The Red/Blue line MAX station at the Rose Quarter has no amenities, although there is a coffee pavilion which I’ve seen open on some occasions. But the coffee pavilion also serves the nearby bus shelters.

    It should also be noted that the Skidmore Fountain stop is there for a reason (Saturday Market) – exactly what is the destination underneath I-205?

    Wait, so now TriMet is only allowed to have transfer points at event destinations? Is that it? (In case you hadn’t noticed, the Saturday Market is a weekend-only affair and not year-round.)

    The Rose Quarter stop is there because of the Rose Quarter

    It’s also there because of the Transit Center and the multiple bus lines that converge there. The ones with big shelters.

    Or is there a magical plan to convert the I-205/Foster/Woodstock area into a “destination”?

    This smells like moving the goalposts to me. If I were the suspicious sort I’d wonder if you weren’t reaching rhetorically, just a bit, for something new to complain about.

  64. Or is there a magical plan to convert the I-205/Foster/Woodstock area into a “destination”?

    The short answer is yes. And, there are Loeb fellows involved with the planning for the ODOT property adjacent to the freeway. There are also current and future developments in the Lents Town Center. Two large projects are currently in planning stages, and stage 1 of the Assurety Northwest building is already complete.

  65. No, buying a hybrid bus in and of itself doesn’t improve transit; but wasn’t it said by a Metro councilor that light rail for the simple sake of transit in and of itself was not a good use of dollars?

    Thank you for admitting as much, and I don’t know whether that quote was said. I’m going to avoid the environmental discussion because that’s a whole separate discussion and I thought we were talking about transit investment.

    Your assertion has always been (as I understand it) that TriMet does not invest its dollars as wisely as Seattle Metro does. You have cited their investment in hybrid buses as an example. I would argue the counterpoint, that this has expended limited resources and with no direct benefit to Seattle Metro’s riders, and was instead an attempt (with debatable success) to protect the environment. Matthew pointed out that it may have been done out of necessity due to the tunnel.

    While it may not have been a bad investment, I don’t think you can argue in this case that Seattle Metro is doing a better job than TriMet of making investments to benefit its customers. To remind you of the obvious, they are now spending over $2B on a new light rail line, as much as Portland has invested total in its entire system (admittedly money doesn’t go as far now as it did in 1986). Perhaps you have more relevant examples to cite of Seattle doing a better job of investing in bus service than Portland?

    The irony from my perspective is that by citing Seattle, you are citing an agency that seems to be following Portland’s example, perhaps belatedly, in developing a complete system – one that includes both rapid transit and bus service.

    Assuming the quote you referenced is accurate, I think the point is that you can’t introduce rapid transit into a suburban environment and expect it to immediately fulfill its potential. It takes decades for urban land uses to redevelop around the stations, in turn producing more riders and fewer auto trips than other types of development. The reference is to the irrefutable connection between transportation and land use – you know, the one that the feds have ignored for 60 years?

    If anyone is interested, here’s a link to a paper that presents a pretty good summary of TriMet’s attempts to put tracker displays at bus stops. The conclusion, as I understand it, is it is not cost competitive. I’m unconvinced as to exactly why, but nevertheless:
    http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/CUTS/bench/tracker.pdf

  66. Fall 2007
    MAX Blue Line: boarding rides 66,280; cost per ride $1.19
    MAX Red Line: boarding rides 26,760; cost per ride $1.56
    MAX Yellow Line: boarding rides 13,600; cost per ride $1.92
    72 Killingsworth: boarding rides 18,450; cost per ride $1.62
    8 Jackson Park: boarding rides 3,340; cost per ride $1.64
    4 Division, 4 Fessenden, 6 MLK and 9 Powell are the only other bus lines with cost per ride under $2.
    12 Barbur: boarding rides 5,870; cost per ride $2.53
    The only other bus line with ridership in 5 figures is 75 Lombard with 10,750; cost per ride $2.12
    MAX lines, once they are built, carry more people at less cost with more reliability and comfort.
    Hard not to like.
    Would more frequent bus service, larger buses and/or bigger shelters make enough difference to get the number of riders to keep cost per ride down? A tough sell unless you give buses exclusive right of way. Dedicate a lane on Barbur to buses; then you have a shot. Its called BRT.

  67. And Seattle’s hybrids actually use MORE fuel than the dual modes, which pretty much makes all your points about emissions untrue.

    This argument is from a 2004 news article that has been repeatedly proven false. Try again.

    Lombard TC has TT displays at the bus stops, and I wouldn’t be surprised if there were other places as well… I can tell you that they aren’t at Barbur Blvd TC though.

    One transit center has transit tracker signs? WOW! Only 7,599 stops to go.

    A certain other big NW transit agency knows how to take old buses and put new engines in them, extending their lifespan, and cleaning up their emissions at the same time. It is too bad that Seattle neglects their bus fleet so bad that they pollute their city.

    How does “Seattle neglect their bus fleet so bad that they pollute their city”? What is the “certain other big NW transit agency” that knows how to take old busses and put new engines in them? What is the reliability of that “other big NW transit agency”‘s bus fleet? What is it’s dispatch reliability? Has its bus ridership gone up or down?

    And as for New Flyer “giving” us the hybrids, that was in exchange for some money that they owed us as a result of the warranty on some of their buses. In other words, we actually did pay for the hybrids…

    Show me the TriMet procurement award for them.

    I don’t know how often I have to repeat this in this thread, but you’ve been making your complaints about TriMet’s investment but the streetcar was built with significant capital funds which were outside of TriMet.

    OK, then Portland Streetcar needs to refund 100% of TriMet’s investment in Streetcar, with interest.

    TriMet money went to the Streetcar, is that not true? Therefore it is a valid argument to consider the inequality of investment made. (Further, since it has been argued that TriMet is not responsible for improvements to access bus stops, then it can be argued that the City of Portland is helping TriMet in its policy of bus service disinvestment by refusing to aggressively improve bus stop areas.)

    What are the boardings per route-mile along these lines compared to MAX or the streetcar?

    I don’t know, Bob, you seem to be hoarding this information that should be public knowledge.

    Can you prove to me that EVERY SINGLE MAX and Streetcar stop has higher boarding than EVERY SINGLE BUS STOP? Of course you can’t. If I had the data (which you do, but selectively choose to withhold it) I would point out within seconds that there are bus stops that have higher ridership than some MAX and Streetcar stops; yet have far less amenities.

    Since you have the data, I want the passenger counts at every single MAX stop, followed by the top fifty bus stops.

    Zero streetcar shelters have Transit Tracker signs. They use NextBus. A contract which was arrived at outside of TriMet. Portland is putting in money from various sources above and beyond what TriMet would do. Any jurisdiction is free to do this.

    You can “glee-san”, I saw “gliss-an”. What’s your point?

    Not quite.

    Fine, 47 out of 48 Streetcar stops have a shelter, did you get your ego boost? Let’s see. 47 divided by 48 is 97.9%. Still far higher than the bus system.

    FY 2007: 1,481,460
    FY 1997: 1,341,564
    Increase: 4.3%

    And Portland’s population growth in that time period: 13.9%. What’s your point? 4.3% total bus improvement spread out over ten years, that’s an average increase of less than one half of one percent per year. WAY TO GO TRIMET!!!!!

    Whether or not the bus shelters are connected to MAX projects is irrelevant — the fact is that there has been investment in these bus shelters.

    Again, only 30% of the recommended investment – TriMet’s own planning documents state TriMet should invest A MINIMUM OF 100 shelters per year to maintain the current (as of 2002) level of service.

    I see you have already partially corrected yourself on this point.

    Because when I am wrong I can admit it. But are we going to go down the road of personal attacks again and point out your role as a Moderator?

    The MAX station under the 10th Ave parking garage has zero amenities. The Red/Blue line MAX station at the Rose Quarter has no amenities, although there is a coffee pavilion which I’ve seen open on some occasions. But the coffee pavilion also serves the nearby bus shelters.

    Let’s see, a Transit Tracker sign, two TVMs, multiple signs, benches, and garbage cans.

    If there were “no amenities” I would expect nothing more than a sidewalk (if that!) and a simple 12″ by 18″ sign that was blue and white, had TriMet’s logo with the word “MAX” next to it, attached to an existing lightpost. Further the stop would not be ADA compliant.

    (Do you want a list of bus stops that meet that description?)

    Wait, so now TriMet is only allowed to have transfer points at event destinations? Is that it? (In case you hadn’t noticed, the Saturday Market is a weekend-only affair and not year-round.)

    So is TriMet only allowed to invest in transit stops that serve MAX? In case YOU hadn’t noticed, 2/3rds of Portland’s transit ridership rides the bus; I would like to think that encouraging transit ridership would also help those riders have a better transit experience too.

    This smells like moving the goalposts to me. If I were the suspicious sort I’d wonder if you weren’t reaching rhetorically, just a bit, for something new to complain about.

    No it’s not moving goal posts. The whole argument for MAX is that it’s “more” than just transit, it’s a development tool and it is environmentally friendly. Now you are backtracking – if MAX is simply a transportation tool and nothing more, I believe it was a Metro councilor that even proclaimed that MAX wasn’t worth it (did not meet cost-effectiveness measures).

    Which is it?

    The short answer is yes.

    Thank you, Cora, for your insightful and mature answers that seem to be lacking from our Moderator.

    Thank you for admitting as much

    Not the first time, either.

    Your assertion has always been (as I understand it) that TriMet does not invest its dollars as wisely as Seattle Metro does.

    Would you be happier if I dropped the hybrid argument, and simply argued for “new, more efficient, high capacity busses”?

    Fine. From now on I will no longer promote hybrid busses. Because we are now focusing on the simple transportation benefit and not development or environmental benefits, we must apply the same standard to MAX and Streetcar. (Which means that there should be zero support for Streetcar.) Further since using public funding for environmental good is no longer sound policy, Fred Hansen and Tom Potter should both immediately dispose of their E-plated Toyota Priuses; if they absolutely must have a government car, I suggest a Hyundai Accent. Small, cost effective (less than $13,000), and provides the same amount of passenger seating.

    I don’t think you can argue in this case that Seattle Metro is doing a better job than TriMet of making investments to benefit its customers.

    So investing in additional transit and growing ridership isn’t a good investment? I’m sorry, I don’t understand your logic. Isn’t the point of public transportation investment to grow and encourage transit use? Or is it “sound investment” to simply not invest?

    To remind you of the obvious, they are now spending over $2B on a new light rail line

    And how much is the Portland-Milwaukie light rail line projected to cost?

    Seattle (Actually, Sound Transit) is spending $2.4B on a 15.7 mile line, or shy of $153M per mile. $880M for Portland’s 6.5 mile line is $136M per mile. Not all that different.

    Of course, if we really want to talk about cost effectiveness, how much would busses cost? Just $136 million dollars (for one mile of MAX light rail) would go a very long ways towards not only providing frequent BRT service between the two cities, but also connecting bus service improvements.

    perhaps belatedly, in developing a complete system – one that includes both rapid transit and bus service.

    You’re right, Seattle is developing a complete system, which includes appropriate investments in ALL forms of public transit, in ALL areas of King County (since Pierce and Snohomish Counties have their own, equally well-invested upon bus systems); plus Sound Transit that also funds regional bus improvements.

    Again – where are the bus improvements in Portland?

    I think the point is that you can’t introduce rapid transit into a suburban environment and expect it to immediately fulfill its potential.

    I think it’s also a point that Portland has disinvested in bus service leading it to be one of the few transit agencies in North America to see flat ridership (and a drop in bus ridership).

    MAX lines, once they are built, carry more people at less cost with more reliability and comfort.

    You’re right – MAX riders do not pay the cost of capital; but bus riders are required to subsidize MAX riders because the fares that go into the bus fareboxes that are supposed to be reinvested in bus service doesn’t get reinvested.

    Yes, a two car MAX train does move more people than a bus, so what? Does MAX serve all of the Portland metro area? No. Will it? No. Does that mean that TriMet should stop investing in quality transit outside of the MAX corridors? (If so, Lenny, you better demand elimination of bus service to Swan Island, and start hiking up Greeley.)

    Further a published report on MAX ridership in the Oregonian showed that MAX trains have very poor utilization in reverse-commute mode, Unfortunately you can’t just park a MAX train and turn it off and send the driver home, like you can a bus; or send the train onto another route (again, like you can a bus).

    Would more frequent bus service, larger buses and/or bigger shelters make enough difference to get the number of riders to keep cost per ride down? A tough sell unless you give buses exclusive right of way. Dedicate a lane on Barbur to buses; then you have a shot. Its called BRT.

    Show me the law (ORS, USC or CFR) that states that bus improvements MUST be a part of BRT.

    I do not believe that it is required to upgrade a bus route to BRT in order to install frequent bus schedules, better busses, or bus stop improvements. TriMet can do that right now without changing a single route. (Of course investing in BRT doesn’t hurt, which Seattle is doing).

    Seattle is increasing transit ridership and they don’t have a single LRT or BRT line open (nor do the ridership counts include SLUS ridership), so your argument falls flat on its face. Seattle is proving that investments in regular bus service DO encourage and grow ridership.

  68. And Portland’s population growth in that time period: 13.9%. What’s your point? 4.3% total bus improvement spread out over ten years, that’s an average increase of less than one half of one percent per year.

    This is very telling, Erik. TriMet operates a _transit_ _system_. This includes light rail. One fare covers rail and bus (yes, with some slight variations in policy).

    The bulk of transit system expansion has been rail, but it is nonetheless transit system expansion, and bus service has also expanded over the time periods you specified. As a net whole, transit expansion has kept up well with population expansion. It hasn’t kept up as well as it could have, but it has nonetheless.

    You appear to dismiss light rail as a valid transit mode, now apparently making the claim that a 4.3% increase in bus service doesn’t help with the increase in population. But _transit_ service has increased much more than that. The bulk of the expansion has gone to rail, which soon will serve all 3 counties.

    I understand that you view rail as too expensive and that you don’t think it serves an adequate cross-section of riders. I get that. But to completely dismiss the amount of transit expansion which has occurred when you make your population argument is useless and misleading.

  69. The whole argument for MAX is that it’s “more” than just transit, it’s a development tool and it is environmentally friendly. Now you are backtracking

    Are you directing that at me or at someone else? You’ve combined all the quotes into one reply without attribution, which makes following your rebuttal all the more difficult.

  70. Erik, regarding data: I’m not hoarding data, as you accuse me of. I don’t have a special conduit into TriMet. I’m using the same data that they give anyone else. I remember there was a flap over homeland security and whether to give out certain types of data (I think it was Mel Zucker, a frequent critic of TriMet policy, who was asking for the data at the time), and I wrote to TriMet back then urging the release of the data. As far as I know that issue was resolved and the data was made available. I’ve even emailed an entire spreadsheet to none other than JK.

    I don’t hoard data, so knock off the petty accusations.

    I’ve just spent an hour and a half compiling the MAX stop information you asked about. (TriMet does not present the data in stop-by-stop form, you have to combine multiple lines individually to get the total.) It will be posted in a moment.

    Beyond that, the Portland Streetcar data I’ve seen does not break the data down into stop-by-stop numbers. I’ve previously suggested to the Portland Streetcar organization that they compile and release the stop-by-stop data at the next survey, and I’ll bring this up again.

    By the way, the PSU Urban Center doesn’t have a streetcar shelter, either.

  71. So somehow, yet again, I’ve let Erik goad me into another bus-vs-rail argument which is miles away from the original topic, but in the interest of not hoarding, here’s the data.

    Caveats: I’ve compiled this from a spreadsheet of Fall, 2006 weekday boarding information. This is the latest data I have which covers all 3 MAX lines. Since then, ridership has jumped considerably on the Yellow Line, and the developments at Cascade Station have opened. Totals were calculated by hand after the stops were compiled in a text editor, so there may be errors/typos.

    It’s difficult to decide what’s a platform and what’s a separate stop/station. I’ve chosen to combine platforms that are less than 100′ apart (by my recollection) into common stations, but I’ve left the platform directions stated so you can make your own delineations.

    Hatfield Government Center MAX Station
    Blue E1,600
    Total: 1,600

    Hillsboro Central/SE 3rd TC MAX Station
    Blue E860
    Blue W56
    Total: 916

    Tuality Hospital/SE 8th Ave MAX Station
    Blue E553
    Blue W117
    Total: 670

    Washington/SE 12th Ave MAX Station
    Blue E456
    Blue W220
    Total: 670

    Fairplex/Hillsboro Airport MAX Station
    Blue E692
    Blue W106
    Total: 798

    Hawthorn Farm MAX Station
    Blue E280
    Blue W88
    Total: 368

    Orenco/NW 231st Ave MAX Station
    Blue E813
    Blue W185
    Total: 998

    Quatama/NW 205th Ave MAX Station
    Blue E1,024
    Blue W243
    Total: 1,267

    Willow Creek/SW 185th Ave TC MAX Station
    Blue E1,513
    Blue W500
    Total: 2,013

    Elmonica/SW 170th Ave MAX Station
    Blue E1,031
    Blue W284
    Red E8
    Red W72
    Total: 1,395

    Merlo/SW 158th Ave MAX Station
    Blue E486
    Blue W227
    Red E9
    Red W9
    Total: 731

    Beaverton Creek MAX Station
    Blue E578
    Blue W148
    Red E14
    Red W1
    Total: 741

    Millikan Way MAX Station
    Blue E1,210
    Blue W418
    Red E59
    Red W7
    Total: 1,694

    Beaverton Central MAX Station
    Blue E393
    Blue W330
    Red E9
    Red W6
    Total: 798

    Beaverton TC MAX Station
    Blue N1,276
    Blue S1,613
    Red N1,255
    Red S23
    Total: 4,167

    Sunset TC MAX Station
    Blue E1,115
    Blue W470
    Red E1,093
    Red W138
    Total: 2,816

    Washington Park MAX Station
    Blue E219
    Blue W106
    Red E176
    Red W39
    Total: 540

    Goose Hollow/SW Jefferson St MAX Station
    Blue E288
    Blue W591
    Red E217
    Red W230
    Total: 1,326

    Kings Hill/SW Salmon St MAX Station
    Blue N252
    Blue S196
    Red N229
    Red S122
    Total: 799

    PGE Park MAX Station
    Blue E810
    Blue W529
    Red E693
    Red W227
    Total: 2,259

    Library/SW 9th Ave MAX Station
    Blue E1,374
    Red E802
    Yel E718
    Total: 2,894

    Galleria/SW 10th Ave MAX Station
    Blue W1,269
    Red W633
    Total: 1,902

    Pioneer Square South MAX Station
    Blue E2,131
    Red E1,325
    Yel E1,012
    Total: 4,468

    Pioneer Square North MAX Station
    Blue W2,232
    Red W1,070
    Yel W187
    Total: 3,489

    Mall/SW 4th Ave MAX Station
    Blue E1,367
    Red E809
    Yel E564
    Total: 2,740

    Mall/SW 5th Ave MAX Station
    Blue W1,295
    Red W563
    Yel W149
    Total: 2,007

    Yamhill District MAX Station
    Blue E1,043
    Red E660
    Yel E416
    Total: 2,119

    Morrison/SW 3rd Ave MAX Station
    Blue W1,083
    Red W428
    Yel W145
    Total: 1,656

    Oak/SW 1st Ave MAX Station
    Blue N586
    Blue S446
    Red N384
    Red S225
    Yel N238
    Yel S117
    Total: 1,996

    Skidmore Fountain MAX Station
    Blue N445
    Blue S423
    Red N278
    Red S276
    Yel N216
    Yel S158
    Total: 1,796

    Old Town/Chinatown MAX Station
    Blue N633
    Blue S541
    Red N491
    Red S312
    Yel N432
    Yel S198
    Total: 2,607

    Rose Quarter TC MAX Station
    Blue E1,227
    Blue W709
    Red E970
    Red W484
    Total: 3,390

    Interstate/Rose Quarter MAX Station
    Yel N1,169
    Yel S116
    Total: 1,285

    Convention Center MAX Station
    Blue E511
    Blue W648
    Red E350
    Red W467
    Total: 1,976

    NE 7th Ave MAX Station
    Blue E515
    Blue W728
    Red E313
    Red W490
    Total: 2,046

    Lloyd Center/NE 11th Ave MAX Station
    Blue E1,276
    Blue W1,693
    Red E772
    Red W1,266
    Total: 5,007

    Hollywood/NE 42nd Ave TC MAX Station
    Blue E529
    Blue W783
    Red E295
    Red W563
    Total: 2,170

    NE 60th Ave MAX Station
    Blue E251
    Blue W651
    Red E137
    Red W450
    Total: 1,489

    NE 82nd Ave MAX Station
    Blue E712
    Blue W935
    Red E255
    Red W710
    Total: 2,612

    Gateway/NE 99th Ave TC MAX Station
    Blue S1,300
    Blue N1,332
    Red S438
    Red N948
    Total: 4,018

    E 102nd Ave MAX Station
    Blue E520
    Blue W779
    Total: 1,299

    E 122nd Ave MAX Station
    Blue E617
    Blue W1,562
    Total: 2,179

    E 148th Ave MAX Station
    Blue E221
    Blue W575
    Total: 796

    E 162nd Ave MAX Station
    Blue E445
    Blue W1,169
    Total: 1,614

    E 172nd Ave MAX Station
    Blue E142
    Blue W415
    Total: 557

    E 181st Ave MAX Station
    Blue E270
    Blue W901
    Total: 1,171

    Rockwood/E 188th Ave TC MAX Station
    Blue E273
    Blue W838
    Total: 1,111

    Ruby Junction/E 197th Ave MAX Station
    Blue E209
    Blue W337
    Total: 546

    Gresham City Hall MAX Station
    Blue E138
    Blue W1,235
    Total: 1,373

    Gresham Central TC MAX Station
    Blue E61
    Blue W1,380
    Total: 1,441

    Cleveland Ave MAX Station
    Blue W1,489
    Total: 1,489

    Parkrose/Sumner TC MAX Station
    Red N116
    Red S825
    Total: 941

    Mt Hood Ave MAX Station
    Red N27
    Red S121
    Total: 148

    Portland Int’l Airport MAX Station
    Red W1,571
    Total: 1,571

    Albina/Mississippi MAX Station
    Yel N123
    Yel S211
    Total: 334

    Overlook Park MAX Station
    Yel N116
    Yel S354
    Total: 470

    N Prescott St MAX Station
    Yel N197
    Yel S469
    Total: 666

    N Killingsworth St MAX Station
    Yel N281
    Yel S672
    Total: 953

    N Portland Blvd MAX Station
    Yel N129
    Yel S485
    Total: 614

    N Lombard TC MAX Station
    Yel N104
    Yel S1,645
    Total: 1,749

    Kenton/N Denver Ave MAX Station
    Yel N28
    Yel S477
    Total: 505

    Delta Park/Vanport MAX Station
    Yel N11
    Yel S383
    Total: 394

    Expo Center MAX Station
    Yel S343

    Of the above, 39 stations have greater than 1,000 boardings. 18 more have 500+ boardings, leaving five with between 343 and 470, and one outlier at 148. Those 6 stations may very well have 500 or more boardings today, as they fall within the areas which have seen changes since 2006.

    I hope Erik can concede those bottom 6 for lack of current data, and look at the other 57 with 500 or more boardings.

    The question then becomes, how many bus stops average more than 500 boardings, but do not have a shelter. (And what percentage _do_ have a shelter?) This would be a good basis for comparison to MAX, where the overwhelming majority of the stations regularly achieve more than 500 boardings.

    I don’t have the time this early AM to pour over all the bus boarding numbers at this time (there are thousands of stops to look at), and I don’t have any data whatsoever about the placement of bus shelters, although Google Maps can reveal them if they aren’t obscured by trees or shadows.

  72. I don’t hoard data, so knock off the petty accusations.

    Then I demand that YOU DO THE SAME.

    By the way, since you have not provided the bus ridership numbers, I stand by my statement. I will be happy to publicly retract my statement as soon as the information is made public.

    And speaking of accusations that Bob R., the Moderator of this forum, has made at me:

    You appear to dismiss light rail as a valid transit mode

    Since when did I say this? This is what I said:

    The whole argument for MAX is that it’s “more” than just transit, it’s a development tool and it is environmentally friendly. Now you are backtracking – if MAX is simply a transportation tool and nothing more

    So you are taking a statement I made, twisted it out of context, and turned it into suggesting that I dismissed light rail as a transportation tool. I did not state this. I fully expect a rebuttal of your line, and that you edit your post to correct your egregous statement against me.

    For the record I have stated multiple times that I am not against light rail; and in fact have praised light rail. On this very thread I have stated that TriMet did a good job of the 1997/1998 service changes that included both the Westside Light Rail expansion IN ADDITION to bus improvements.

    Now, are you willing to state for the record your support for bus service, because you seem to be backtracking on that support that you used to proudly proclaim that you had; and instead are coming up with a huge list of reasons not to support additional bus investments. If you truly supported bus service, you would take your data and show that “when we invest in MAX we increase ridership. When we do not invest in bus service, ridership drops. When other transit agencies invest in bus service, ridership increases. Therefore TriMet should be increasing investment in bus service, which increases bus ridership – and since a substantial amount of MAX ridership is associated with bus ridership, an increase in bus ridership will likely ALSO increase MAX ridership.”

    Wow, another show of support for MAX as a mode of transportation from yours truly.

    Thank you, Bob, for turning this thread into another “Bob wants to talk about Erik” thread. I came here to push for transportation investments, but I guess you’re more interested in talking about me. What do you want to know about me? I have brown hair, blue eyes, 6’1″ tall, live in Southwest Portland, own one car (for a household of three), ride a bus to work five days a week, and my primary hobby is railroad history and preservation.

  73. “Thank you, Bob, for turning this thread into another “Bob wants to talk about Erik” thread.”

    hehehehehehehehehehehehe!!!!!!!!!!!

  74. Erik, I don’t know why you insist on making this personal, I really don’t. You’ve attacked my character in several recent threads, “clearly biased” you called me, for posting a representative sample of newspaper articles, and never apologized.

    You accused me here of “hoarding data”, to which I spent nearly two hours compiling the data you requested, and then you didn’t engage in a discussion of the data, instead insisting that I do even more homework for you.

    All I get for my efforts is “I will be happy to publicly retract my statement as soon as the information is made public.”, and ridiculous demands that I “state for the record your support for bus service” as though this were some kind of congressional hearing (and as though Google didn’t exist), and it’s not the first time you’ve done it.

  75. After scrolling through the same statements for the what seems like the fiftieth time, I’m starting to wish Erik and Bob would take the bus vs. rail debate “outside;” and this isn’t even my website, nor do I run things around here! (And I know better than to post things like this, but I don’t know any other way of making the statement.)

    Getting back to the original topic of Lenny’s summary of almost 110 years of transit/planning history in Portland, it will be interesting to see how the decisions we make today affect Portland in, say, 20 years from now, and 40 years, etc.

    Will also be interesting to see how transportation modes change as well, which I’m sure they will. Nothing is constant.

  76. Jason –

    Thank you for your comments.

    I really don’t know what to do at this point.

    I see a few choices, none of them positive:

    • 1. Censor or redirect this off-topic debate whenever it crops up, but I’ve taken great pains to not appear to be censoring ideas with which I disagree.
    • 2. Not engage in a debate at all, but this allows a person with one point-of-view to dominate any discussion and causes me to self-censor when I encounter information with which I disagree. I have experimented here and there, not commenting in certain threads for days and days, but it doesn’t stop some of the other serial debate-dominators around here from chiming in again and again and again.
    • 3. Continue to engage, but face continued accusations of bias even though choices #1 and #2 result in a more biased discussion.

    These are issues I care about, and I suppose part of the reason I engage so directly and forcefully (at times) in these side-discussions is that some people try to tie disagreement to negative statements about my character, so I must doubly-defend both a viewpoint and my own reputation.

    I suppose an ideal moderator would be someone who never, ever posts on any topic, has no strong opinions about a topic, is impartial, yet knows enough about a topic to know when the discussion has taken a wrong turn, knows when to censor, and when to ignore. But I don’t think such a person actually exists.

    Does anyone have knowledge of transit/transportation/infrastructure/planning, but doesn’t have strong opinions?

  77. and btw Bob;

    I want you to know that:

    [expletive deleted] has now become a standard method of expression for me around the blogosphere!

    Once again, I owe it all to PORTLAND TRANSPORT!

  78. then you didn’t engage in a discussion of the data, instead insisting that I do even more homework for you.

    Bob, you know as well as I do that you can’t discuss something that is one sided. I have asked for a fair comparison of bus stop boarding data versus MAX stop boarding data.

    It is a FACT that TriMet refuses to publish this data for public retrieval and viewing so that the public can make an educated guess. I have complained that TriMet refuses to make a large amount of data public (unlike many other transit agencies) yet I do not see support for TriMet to make this information public – even if it actually provided data to show that the bus system, as is frequently cited, is not “successful” in providing a quality public transportation service.

    You are trying to make the point that there is not a single bus stop that has boarding counts anywhere near a MAX stop, and therefore does not warrant the type of investment that I ask for that would increase bus ridership. I can’t compare MAX and bus stop information if all I have is MAX information – are you suggesting that nobody rides busses?

    Now you are making complaints such as:

    You’ve attacked my character in several recent threads

    And you have done the same, even when I have made a perfectly legitimate, non-inciting post to this forum – you have come out with boxing gloves and made hostile replies. Just as you demand the right to defend yourself – is it not fair that I have the same right to defend myself?

    All I get for my efforts is “I will be happy to publicly retract my statement as soon as the information is made public.”,

    Thank you, Bob, for providing me one-half of the information I asked for.

    as though this were some kind of congressional hearing

    I do think it is appropriate for people to come out and state what they are for. When I see folks who claim they support “transit” but then express views that are anti-bus, I want to know what their true intentions are – are they pro-“transit” or pro-“rail”? There is a huge difference and yet many contributors here claim they are pro-“transit” when in fact they are not.

    Not engage in a debate at all, but this allows a person with one point-of-view to dominate any discussion and causes me to self-censor when I encounter information with which I disagree

    This very same argument could be applied towards pro-Streetcar and pro-Light Rail posts, that they dominate with their single point-of-view that often is in direct conflict with bus service in the Portland metropolitan area.

    While there has been a couple of posts that directly related towards bus improvements, a number of folks with their single-point-of-view went into those posts with their anti-bus sentiments; and the number of pro-bus topics is far distant towards the number of pro-Streetcar and pro-Light Rail topics; clearly in contrast to the actual transit usage in Portland.

    Not that I am suggesting that 65% of all discussion here should be bus related, but there is a clear point of view that steamrolls over the other point of view. I just refuse to be steamrolled and it appears to upset you that I refuse to submit to blind support of a transportation policy that ignores a huge percentage of Portland transit riders – and make it a point (albeit frequent) that bus riders are often negatively affected by policy decisions made at Metro, TriMet, and the City of Portland.

  79. Erik –

    I have already done a preliminary analysis of the spreadsheet regarding bus service stops. There are literally _thousands_ to go over, and automating this process is beyond my level of Excel expertise. (It took me an hour and a half to compile the MAX information, and there’s just 3 light rail lines.) If I can find the time, I’ll do it, and I’ll post the data as a separate thread. For now, let’s please keep this thread closer to it’s original topic. More than one person (publicly and privately) has indicated that they’re tired of both of us. Let’s move on.

  80. You are trying to make the point that there is not a single bus stop that has boarding counts anywhere near a MAX stop,

    Nope, I’ve never said or implied such a thing. Never.

Leave a Reply to Al M Cancel reply

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