News from the Portland Office of Transportation Streetcar System Plan:
Are you interested in learning more about the streetcars in Portland? How about a streetcar corridor in your community? In either case, come to the Streetcar System Plan Workshop in your district. The outcome of these meetings will be a community decision about whether to take on a two-month study of potential streetcar corridors in each district or decide that it’s not a priority for the community at this time.
Northeast District Workshop
Tuesday, April 8
7:00 – 9:00 p.m.
Grant High School Choir Room
2245 NE 36th Ave.Outer East Portland District Workshop
Tuesday, April 15
7:00 – 9:00 p.m.
East Portland Community Center, Classroom #1 740 SE 106th Ave.
Southeast District Workshop Thursday, April 3
7:00 – 9:00 p.m.
Cleveland High School Library
3400 SE 26th Ave.
Northwest and Southwest District Workshop Monday, April 14
7:00 – 9:00 p.m.
Lincoln High School, Room #169
1600 SW Salmon St.
North Portland District Workshop Wednesday, April 9
7:00 – 9:00 p.m.
St. Johns Community Center Auditorium
8427 N. Central St.
For more information contact Portland Office of Transportation Streetcar System Plan staff: Emily Lieb at 503-823-7854 or Patrick Sweeney at 503-823-5611
Visit the project web page:
http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=45755
0 responses to “Streetcar System Plan Workshops in April”
Thanks for the heads-up Bob. I hope to be able to make it to at least one.
Adron,
Some months ago Erik H. had brought up a concept used in Germany–a diesel motored double decked rail vehicle. They call it the scheienbus, or “rail bus” which is not exactly accurate because old fashioned schienebus’s are already used, but they are single level, tandem cars. So this new one has roughly double capacity and only one car. And then it runs on plain-Jane, conventional rails. So it could run on existing rail tracks, which is what it does in Germany.
I suppose if it was implemented here it could have some clearance issues, but the double decked transport I have been on in the past seems to utilize it’s height pretty well. Since this uses a diesel engine it seems that it would be relatively easy to find enough biodiesel 100 to move it–especially if it became a wildly popular ride.
I don’t know why Oregon Pacific RR could not operate one connecting OMSI to Milwaukie, Lake Oswego and Clackamas all on existing tracks. At least at commuter hours. The proprietor of OPRR has been at some of our Sellwood meetings so I had hoped to ask him. I agree if smaller communities want something to build higher density neigbothoods around they may not ne able to get Congressional money for something such as the Portland Streetcar system—but still they could have a lot of seldom used trackage.
There you go. Conventional freight plus commuter rail on existing tracks and at a budget, too. Even the standard schienebus would work. I don’t know if both cars have engines–sort of a push me-pull you scenario–or just one. And I think most of our railways have enough clearance under viaducts for a taller car.
Hey, I thought I just heard someone yodeling….
Correction:
That should be “Schienenbus.”
Adron,
That’s an excellent question – how do you get private industry to build – or at least help build – these lines?
I think there are 2 key elements to this: making it profitable to build, and making it affordable to build.
The first step, making it profitable, requires allowing and encouraging such substantial increases in density that developers can make profits adequate to kickback some to the streetcar investment. This, of course, comes with the challenges of acceptance by neighborhoods and willingness of developers to kickback some of the now-possible profits. These challenges are more pronounced now than with the historic lines.
The second step is making the construction affordable. I’m not sure it’s in anyone’s best interests to degrade the quality of the construction to make them cheaper. The current streetcar components are not exorbitant by any definition. So, to make them cost-feasible they either require subsidies from government or from developer profits. This is the idea behind Urban Renewal.
Are there other ideas?
I know this figure is a little out dated; I found it in a report from 1999, from an actual railroad. The cost for reconstructing a mile of standard gauge railroad track was $600,000. I’m assuming that this involved no rail bed, trestles, crossings, switching yards—-just replacing ties and bad rails. And then you have to figure in inflation to bring it up to today’s prices.
Still what should it really cost to rebuild the Westshore trolley line so that a vehicle such as a schienenbus could run on it? Perhaps the double decker model could not get through the tunnel–I don’t know. Still, since a diesel powered trolley car already makes the trip what is the big deal of a relatively simple upgrade to have serious commuter potential. This vehicle could have uses on existing rail lines everywhere. I am taking some photos to the Streetcar Workshops. Here is a link with a number of photos:
http://www.railfaneurope.net/frameset.html
I might be misremembering, but I think the Oregon Electric Railway Historical Society used to operate a double decker trolley on the Willamette Shore Trolley line. If a vintage double-decker trolley could run through the tunnel, I expect a modern one could as well.
However, I don’t know if it could run under the existing overhead streetcar wires. In order to be viable as transit, the line really should be a single-seat ride from Lake Oswego to downtown Portland, which means sharing streetcar tracks once it reaches South Waterfront.
“In order to be viable as transit, the line really should be a single-seat ride from Lake Oswego to downtown Portland, which means sharing streetcar tracks once it reaches South Waterfront.”
Agreed. I have suggested a number of times, in previous posts here, that we could be close to having a streetcar system to each quadrant of the city that complements our MAX system—for a fraction of what is on the table now for rail mass transit. For example I have suggested a two line system from Milwaukie–one line using the Westshore route–that would serve the area much better than the one line MAX being proposed. Tying in to the Westshore passengers could also go south to Lakes Oswego. But Tri Met is going full speed ahead with its Billion dollar plus MAX train and holding input meetings—so the diesel railbus was kind of a stopgap proposal.
It still might be quite viable in suburban areas. For example the West side commuter line perhaps could have used this.
Yes I agree a person should be able to board a car in Lake Oswego or Oregon City and get to NW Portland, Lloyd District or even to Vancouver without tansfering. But that idea has been regularly shot down on this forum and TriMet is going to have their multi-billion system, cause it will make a lot of jobs for union members and local contractors.
I might be misremembering, but I think the Oregon Electric Railway Historical Society used to operate a double decker trolley on the Willamette Shore Trolley line. If a vintage double-decker trolley could run through the tunnel, I expect a modern one could as well.
Yes, they did:
http://www.trainweb.org/oerhs/roster/blackpool_48.htm
The reason this trolley was “retired” was due to maintenance needs; it was getting worn out. So it is now at the trolley museum in Brooks while Broadway car #813 now runs the WST:
http://www.trainweb.org/oerhs/roster/portlandtraction_813.htm
The Elk Rock Tunnel was built with the height in mind for a reason – it had to accomodate the overhead wire for the Red Electric trains, plus freight trains which ran through the tunnel until the late 1970s/early 1980s.
This line could be easily upgraded to accomodate a “diesel light rail” train or even the double-deck schienenbus that Ron brought up:
http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/de/diesel/dmu/670/dbag670.jpg
However the powers that be (namely Metro and the City of Portland) would rather take an inexpensive project that would be modest in nature by simply upgrading the track structure (new rails, ties, ballast, very simple bus-stop like stops) and would spend $15-20M a mile to build it to Portland Streetcar standards, complete with double-track (read: property acquisition costs, advanced grading and soil stabilization, replace the tunnel, and replace several trestles), electrified (build overhead wire and substations), and expensive Streetcar style stations (that cost a factor of several times higher than a “simple” stop that is nothing more than a small sidewalk extension and stop sign, and possibly a bus stop style shelter, bench and garbage can where appropriate) that include massive oversized decorative shelters that also require additional land to be acquired.
A “simple” upgrade to this line, I would estimate to cost about $10-15 million. This would rebuild the track structure with concrete ties, welded rail, limited passing sidings, simple stop facilities, and two or three vehicles. The top speed would be around 40 MPH which is still an increase over current bus service, and would be prudent given development that is close to the railroad.
Metro’s rendition of this line would cost at a minimum $120 million – large portions of this cost is simply in buying up expensive real estate.
If a “diesel light rail” option were chosen, it would be easy to extend this service past Lake Oswego onto the existing P&W track to Lake Grove, Tualatin and Sherwood using a stretch of freight railroad that is seldom used; east of Lake Grove service is only a couple times of week and at night. The lack of service would make it reasonable to schedule freight traffic outside of passenger service hours – thus enabling the use of a “light” vehicle that does not meet FRA Crashworthiness requirements (which is the case on the Beaverton-Wilsonville WES line, due to numerous freight movements). This would provide an alternative to the 12/94 line, and possibly even give TriMet a reason to drop 12/94 service west of King City (given the poor patronage and high cost of the line) save for maybe a limited service bus between Tigard TC and Sherwood. It would also provide despirately needed transit options between Tualatin and Sherwood (albeit it would not eliminate the need to provide service along the existing employment corridor of Tualatin-Sherwood Road).
It should be noted that the double-deck schienenbus (DB670) vehicles mentioned above were put out of operation in 2003 since they proved to be too failure prone.
This of course does not say anything against the principle of construction.
It should be noted that the double-deck schienenbus (DB670) vehicles mentioned above were put out of operation in 2003 since they proved to be too failure prone.
Yes, but there is nothing that prevents a re-engineered version of said vehicle to be launched. Or that another manufacturer could take the concept and introduce their own model.
It’s just like saying “all automobiles are bad” because one model of car was bad; or that “all XXX make XXX model cars are bad” because a specific version (year) of the model was bad – and completely discounting the concept that the vehicle can be improved. (Then again, there are some folks that think ALL articulated busses are bad, because the Crown Ikarus 286 model purchased by TriMet was not exactly a success – however even that vehicle was eventually reworked and remained in TriMet service for 16 years.)
Heck, the Boeing-Vertol LRVs that were used in San Francisco and Boston weren’t well regarded – does that mean ALL light rail trains (including Streetcar) are trash?
Erik, I believe that Stephan agrees with you — when he said “This of course does not say anything against the principle of construction”, I took him to mean exactly what you just espoused. Keep in mind there may be a bit of a language barrier in this case.
Heck, the Boeing-Vertol LRVs that were used in San Francisco and Boston weren’t well regarded – does that mean ALL light rail trains (including Streetcar) are trash?
Regular long-term riders of those cars could be forgiven if they became soured on the whole idea of rail transport in general!
However the powers that be (namely Metro and the City of Portland) would rather take an inexpensive project that would be modest in nature by simply upgrading the track structure (new rails, ties, ballast, very simple bus-stop like stops) and would spend $15-20M a mile to build it to Portland Streetcar standards, complete with double-track (read: property acquisition costs, advanced grading and soil stabilization, replace the tunnel, and replace several trestles), electrified (build overhead wire and substations), and expensive Streetcar style stations (that cost a factor of several times higher than a “simple” stop that is nothing more than a small sidewalk extension and stop sign, and possibly a bus stop style shelter, bench and garbage can where appropriate) that include massive oversized decorative shelters that also require additional land to be acquired.
Erik, is this the plan currently proposed or something you’re just making up? Double-tracking all the way down? Replacing the tunnel? It seems to me that single-track most of the way from Johns Landing to Lake Oswego, with double-tracking at the stations, would serve streetcar operations quite well. It puts a limit on the frequency of service, and it means occasionally streetcars will have to wait at a station for the track to clear. But by giving northbound traffic priority in the morning and southbound traffic priority in the afternoon, the number of inconvenienced passengers should be kept to a minimum.
Also, your description of a “simple bus stop style station” wiht a curb extension, bench, shelter and bench describes the streetcar stations Portland built. Is there a proposal on the table to give the streetcar upgraded stations with huge shelters along the Willamette Shore segment?
Doug –
The streetcar shelters along most of the alignment are similar in size to TriMet’s standard bus shelters. The newest shelters along the South Waterfront extension are a bit larger (I haven’t measured the difference) and a number of them feature custom art glass panel installations. It may be these South Waterfront shelters that Erik is objecting to.
You can see the art panels and information about their design here:
http://www.portlandstreetcar.org/shelterdesigns.php
You can find more information about the Lake Oswego proposal here:
http://www.metro-region.org/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=227
The draft alternatives analysis from July (PDF) can be found here:
There is a discussion of the extent of single-tracking and double-tracking and passenger capacities of both on page 15 of the draft (page 19 of the PDF):
http://www.metro-region.org/files/planning/loaa_draft_exec_sum_web.pdf
There’s room for disagreement about the assumptions going into the analysis, and the extent of infrastructure required to support the conclusions about demand, but it is clear that planners have in mind varying levels of service and capacity when compared to a very basic sprucing up of the existing ROW.
”’There’s room for disagreement about the assumptions going into the analysis,”’
~~> AGREED!
And let me also say this:
HAPPY EASTER!
http://amargul.blogspot.com/2008/03/happy-easter.html
Douglas K.
No, I’m not making this up. Using the link that Bob R. provided, I find this document:
http://www.metro-region.org/files/planning/visual_sim_for_web-reduced_size.pdf
On slide 16 is a picture of a “BRT” stop, showing nothing more than a BUS STOP SIGN. On the following page is a “Streetcar” stop with AN ENHANCED SHELTER that is clearly MUCH, MUCH larger than TriMet’s standard bus shelter. A second shelter can be seen on the opposite side of the street.
There is clearly a difference at Metro when it comes to a “bus” shelter and a “Streetcar” shelter.
On slide 30, it shows that the track is DOUBLE-TRACKED, whereas on slide 29 shows the current Willamette Shores Trolley alignment. (At least this station doesn’t show anything fancy in terms of shelter amenities).
Slides 37 and 38 also show ENHANCED SHELTERS for the Streetcar option, as does slide 42.
To refer to Bob’s statement: The newest shelters along the South Waterfront extension are a bit larger (I haven’t measured the difference) and a number of them feature custom art glass panel installations. It may be these South Waterfront shelters that Erik is objecting to.
Primarily, yes. But even to the north the Streetcar stops are overbuilt compared to a standard TriMet bus stop – at least the shelter enclosure itself is similar. But the SoWa shelters are certainly above and beyond what is necessary – especially given that many of these stops have essentially ZERO ridership, due to the lack of any development/destinations in the area.
Erik –
The slide #16 that you mention only shows 2ft of the sidewalk. It primarily illustrates a dedicated bus lane. There is no way to tell if there is a shelter there or not.
On slide #33, there is a bus shelter, clearly shown, which is comparable to the streetcar shelter you mention on slide #17. As far as I can tell, they are identical.
Slide #30, as you mention, shows no streetcar shelter (probably due to the limited view). The double-tracking you object to is in a station area — this is essentially a passing siding. It makes sense to locate limited portions of double-tracking in station areas, as this is the best place for a vehicle to remain stopped when waiting for a single-tracked section to become clear.
given that many of these stops have essentially ZERO ridership, due to the lack of any development/destinations in the area.
You are the first person I’ve seen argue that there is a lack of development/destinations in the South Waterfront area. A great many people have argued that the development is overly-subsidized or in some way a bad idea, but I’ve never seen anyone argue that the development was essentially not happening.
Federal rail regulations would probably make all these ideas a moot point, because you need to buy a massive rail car that can get smacked by a freight train at 79 mph and not even get a dent. You will need a freight loco to pull each one, plus Amtrak passenger cars. It will cost a lot of money.
I find it comical there’s a female buttocks in many of the streetcar “simulations”, yet many less people in the BRT.
I really prefer streetcar, but it actually does seem it could maybe be a little biased. Oh, and the BRT pictures make it look like an afterthought, while the streetcar pictures make it look like a centerpiece.
We have to weigh it fairly if we’re going to bother.
I find it comical there’s a female buttocks in many of the streetcar “simulations”, yet many less people in the BRT.
You have got to be kidding. Now we’re counting buttocks to determine if Metro’s presentation is biased?
You have got to be kidding. Now we’re counting buttocks to determine if Metro’s presentation is biased?
The butts was just something else I happened to notice, and it made me laugh. And I really only caught that after noticing how the streetcar renderings all looked nicer.
I was more referring to how, for example, Macadam and Boundary street car rendering looks compared to the BRT option. The streetcar has a nicely designed covered stop, the BRT one is a standard sign on a post. Nothing else is shown.
For Highway 43 at SW Military, the drawing doesn’t even show space for a stop on the far side of the street, even though a bus appears stopped there.
Otherwise, they don’t even show a bus rendering at all for downtown Lake Oswego, but they have a ton of drawings of the streetcar rushing around.
It just seems they’re already a lot more focused on making it a streetcar. Why not look at a BRT loop as well if BRT’s really on the board? To me the document read like it was written for streetcar, and then had BRT thrown in later.
Personally I wish they’d just get moving on building the streetcar. It’s the obvious answer, and then they can stop wasting time and money pretending to decide.
Federal rail regulations would probably make all these ideas a moot point, because you need to buy a massive rail car that can get smacked by a freight train at 79 mph and not even get a dent. You will need a freight loco to pull each one, plus Amtrak passenger cars. It will cost a lot of money.
First of all, the Jefferson Street Branch/Willamette Shores Trolley line is currently detached from the “national rail network”, so FRA requirements do not apply.
Secondly, even if the line were connected, as long as there is positive separation between freight and passenger trains it is possible to operate with non-compliant equipment. Because there is no such separation on the WES route (P&W refused to hold its trains) the equipment used on that line must meet FRA crashworthiness regs. There is a line in New Jersey that currently operates with a waiver due to low freight traffic.
The line between Milwaukee and Sherwood would certainly qualify; as the freight traffic on the line today operates at nighttime (Lake Grove-Sherwood) and can be rescheduled (Lake Grove-Milwaukee).
Third, the FRA regs do not specify “locomotive and Amtrak cars”, it specifies only the impact that the railcar must survive. The equipment used on WES is not a “locomotive and Amtrak cars”, it is a “diesel multiple unit” or DMU vehicle that is self-propelled; and is a type of vehicle that Amtrak neither owns nor operates.
The slide #16 that you mention only shows 2ft of the sidewalk. It primarily illustrates a dedicated bus lane. There is no way to tell if there is a shelter there or not.
On slide 16 there is absolutely no evidence of a shelter that can be seen despite plenty of room for an overhang where the bus stop sign is. On slide 17, the shelter is prominent.
On slide #33, there is a bus shelter, clearly shown, which is comparable to the streetcar shelter you mention on slide #17. As far as I can tell, they are identical.
Only if a bus shelter being identical to a Streetcar shelter means removing glass windshields and a bench that are clearly apparent on the Streetcar shelter but are clearly missing from the bus shelter.
Also note, on slide 33, that the available bench at the stop is OUTSIDE of the bus shelter; yet the Streetcar shelter has a bench inside the shelter.
Slide #30, as you mention, shows no streetcar shelter (probably due to the limited view). The double-tracking you object to is in a station area — this is essentially a passing siding.
Still costs more money.
You are the first person I’ve seen argue that there is a lack of development/destinations in the South Waterfront area.
So, tell me, what is located within 500 feet of the Streetcar stop (which, by the way, is equipped with a very expensive decorative shelter with etched glass) at S.W. Lowell & Bond?
I count an undeveloped, oversize city block, two parking lots, several leftover industrial buildings, a freeway…so in other words your argument is that we have an expensive Streetcar extension and station to serve an existant restaurant (the Old Spaghetti Factory).
You have got to be kidding. Now we’re counting buttocks to determine if Metro’s presentation is biased?
Let’s see. Let’s show a BRT station with a few passengers, or show a Streetcar station with lots of passengers. What “looks” more popular?
Duh.
Erik: Milwaukee
Milwaukie. (At least we can agree on that, I hope.)
Erik: Duh.
As for artist renderings of shelters, female buttocks, and reading the BRT tea leaves, I’ll mostly just leave what was already said for the record and let folks review the documents and decide for themselves, and add just this one consideration:
Could the supposed predominance of streetcar renderings have anything to do with the fact that the neighborhood associations and various groups along the alignment have expressed strong concerns about the potential impacts of a streetcar, which would run right through their properties?
Erik: So, tell me, what is located within 500 feet of the Streetcar stop (which, by the way, is equipped with a very expensive decorative shelter with etched glass) at S.W. Lowell & Bond?
Right at the stop, an a new project with 240 affordable housing units is slated to break ground this year:
http://www.amaa.com/portfolio/project/?category=housing&project=141
(There was an appeal by some members of the neighborhood of the design of that project, but as I understand it the appeal was denied in late January and the project is moving forward. The appellants, in part, wanted more units and also larger family-oriented units in the mix.)
Within 500ft gets you the John Ross and Atwater Place, but those are better-served by other streetcar stops, such as the one at Moody and Gaines, which doesn’t have a shelter at all, by the way.
Oh, and right across the street from the 240-unit project, there are two 6-story apartment buildings slated with 270 units total plus ground-floor retail.
I suppose the purchase/installation of the Lowell shelter could have been delayed until the new buildings were completely finished, but it doesn’t seem wrong to have it done at the beginning, when the contractor could order multiple shelters and install them as part of the normal workflow.
Given that TriMet did not directly fund the capital portion of the Lowell Extension, I’m not sure how you can argue that this is depriving TriMet bus lines of investments that could go to bus shelters.
I suppose the purchase/installation of the Lowell shelter could have been delayed until the new buildings were completely finished, but it doesn’t seem wrong to have it done at the beginning, when the contractor could order multiple shelters and install them as part of the normal workflow.
And I suppose that we could make sure that every TriMet bus stop has a shelter, regardless of ridership, development (or lack thereof), etc. etc. etc.
And I suppose we could make every bus a 60′ articulated, hybrid-electric bus, even if the bus will only have 5 boarding rides per hour.
And I suppose that every bus stop will have a NextBus display. Even if the bus stop has two riders per day.
Hey, if it’s good enough for Streetcar, then let’s start APPLYING THE SAME STANDARD TO BUS SERVICE. I fully expect your support for TriMet (and partners Metro and the City of Portland) to provide the same level of investment, including a massive buildout of bus service.
No? Yeah, I thought so, just another example of the double-standard – let’s gold plate the Streetcar, but maybe sure the bus service is funded like an ugly-headed stepchild.
Given that TriMet did not directly fund the capital portion of the Lowell Extension, I’m not sure how you can argue that this is depriving TriMet bus lines of investments that could go to bus shelters.
Does the Portland Streetcar get regional mass transit dollars?
Yes?
OK, then why is Metro not allocating those dollars towards regional transit needs (including TriMet shelters)? Can you honestly tell me with a straight face that the Portland Streetcar was 100% funded solely from propery tax increment funding within the LIDs that the Streetcar runs through; that $0.00 was obtained through TriMet dollars, City of Portland general fund dollars, Multnomah County funding, Metro funding, Federal transportation dollars, etc.?
No?
Well, since City of Portland dollars went to it, maybe you’ll have no problem telling Sam Adams providing my City of Portland located bus stop with the same amenities; along with my employment bus stops located alongside City of Portland streets, on City of Portland maintained sidewalks.
Maybe you can pull up the ridership data for my stops (located on the PSU campus). I also recall PSU being the single largest transit O&D point, yet it gets nothing more than a plain transit shelter. I would think that it would get a bit more…don’t you think?
Could the supposed predominance of streetcar renderings have anything to do with the fact that the neighborhood associations and various groups along the alignment have expressed strong concerns about the potential impacts of a streetcar, which would run right through their properties?
I wasn’t even referring to THOSE renderings. Do you want me to?
Sigh.
And I suppose that we could make sure that every TriMet bus stop has a shelter, regardless of ridership, development (or lack thereof), etc. etc. etc.
I fully support putting in bus shelters in coordination with planned redevelopment. I even suggested locations for shelters, benches, and curb extensions within my own neighborhood to both TriMet and private developers. (So far to no effect.) But you know this because I’ve told you multiple times before.
And I suppose we could make every bus a 60′ articulated, hybrid-electric bus, even if the bus will only have 5 boarding rides per hour.
There are no streetcars with only 5 boarding rides per hour.
And I suppose that every bus stop will have a NextBus display. Even if the bus stop has two riders per day.
There are no streetcar stops with only two riders per day.
Hey, if it’s good enough for Streetcar
Your examples are not analogous to the streetcar.
I fully expect your support for TriMet (and partners Metro and the City of Portland) to provide the same level of investment, including a massive buildout of bus service.
Why do you consistently demand pledges from me? I’m not going to make them to you anymore, because you’ve ignored them and you pretend that I don’t stand for improved transit service across-the-board.
just another example of the double-standard – let’s gold plate the Streetcar,
It’s hardly gold-plated. It’s nice, well-built, and includes art at some places (the aforementioned glass panels in some shelters, for example), but it’s by no means gold-plated.
but maybe sure the bus service is funded like an ugly-headed stepchild.
The City of Portland is kicking in a lot of money to extend and reconstruct the transit mall, not just for light rail — a rebuild was due with or without rail. I went to literally dozens of meetings urging more and larger bus shelters, and preservation of existing shelters. I submitted many reports, got articles in the paper, etc. It’s a matter of public record. I didn’t see you at any of these meetings, workshops, or open houses (forgive me if I missed you) — yet you still demand pledges from me.
Does the Portland Streetcar get regional mass transit dollars?
The Lowell extension had capital funds from the following sources:
Capital Budget: $14.45 million
Local Improvement District: $4.80 million
Transportation Systems Development Charges: $2.50 million
Connect Oregon: $2.10 million
Tax Increment Funds: $1.80 million
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development: $0.65 million
Gibbs Extension Savings: $0.66 million
Tram Transfer: $0.15 million
Misc.: $1.79 million
Can you honestly tell me with a straight face that the Portland Streetcar was 100% funded solely from propery tax increment funding within the LIDs that the Streetcar runs through
I never claimed that. Not ever.
I also never claimed there were no TriMet dollars — I said there were no direct contributions from TriMet.
If you think the City of Portland has no business doing this, and that TriMet should be doing the transit planning and funding (as well as allocating a greater percentage of capital and operating dollars to buses), that’s fine. But TriMet wasn’t interested in the streetcar in the beginning, which is why it’s largely governed by the City of Portland.
Well, since City of Portland dollars went to it, maybe you’ll have no problem telling Sam Adams providing my City of Portland located bus stop with the same amenities;
Is this all about _your_ bus stop? Did you know I don’t even live on a streetcar line, present or proposed? (I do live 1.5 blocks from an I-84 MAX station.) I’m not advocating for streetcars in certain corridors based on my own immediate personal desires, I’m trying to do what I think is important for the future of the city.
Maybe you can pull up the ridership data for my stops (located on the PSU campus). I also recall PSU being the single largest transit O&D point, yet it gets nothing more than a plain transit shelter. I would think that it would get a bit more…don’t you think?
PSU had a very large MAX-style shelter with transit tracker display at it’s bus stop on 6th near the urban center for years. That will be a MAX stop now, but the bus shelter is still there. The PSU streetcar stops are basic shelters (with NextBus), and the Urban Center streetcar stop has no shelter at all.
In any case, if your PSU stops are on 5th or 6th, they will be getting new Mall-style bus shelters as part of the mall rebuild. If you want to list specific stops, I’d be happy to look up the ridership and try and get an answer about future plans.
Please, just stop demanding pledges. (I fully expect your support on the pledge front.)
There are no streetcars with only 5 boarding rides per hour.
So what you are telling me is that EVERY Streetcar stop – EVERY SINGLE ONE – has more ridership than EVERY SINGLE TriMet stop that does not have a shelter?
And that EVERY Streetcar stop that has an “enhanced” shelter has more ridership than EVERY TriMet stop that has just a regular shelter?
Transportation Systems Development Charges: $2.50 million
Connect Oregon: $2.10 million
Tax Increment Funds: $1.80 million
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development: $0.65 million
Gibbs Extension Savings: $0.66 million
Tram Transfer: $0.15 million
Misc.: $1.79 million
OK, and how many of these sources have been called upon for bus system improvements? Does TriMet, Metro, and the City of Portland actively seek out investment dollars to improve bus service?
Certainly the HUD can be called upon to building “bus stations” near residential centers to improve access to bus lines. ConnectOregon can build improved bus transfer points. SDCs can be used to improve bus access. And “Miscellaneous” – that sounds like a direct subsidy from my house located five miles away from the Streetcar.
It’s hardly gold-plated. It’s nice, well-built, and includes art at some places (the aforementioned glass panels in some shelters, for example), but it’s by no means gold-plated.
OK, then maybe we need to have “nice, well-built” busses, with art at “some places” on the bus system. What exactly is the “art” at Barbur Blvd. TC, or Washington Square TC, or Beaverton TC, or Tualatin P&R?
The City of Portland is kicking in a lot of money to extend and reconstruct the transit mall, not just for light rail — a rebuild was due with or without rail.
Fine. So you supported bus shelters downtown. Are all bus and MAX platforms going to be identical in amenities? (Identical, by the way, means identical.) Is the City of Portland going to invest in bus stops outside of the transit mall?
As for the reroute, is it appropriate that bus riders are inconvenienced for two years with insufficient shelters? Would TriMet/City of Portland do the same to Streetcar and Light Rail riders – by removing 70% of the shelter capacity for a two year construction project, or would they provide similiar/equal treatment as before? And why are bus passengers not getting equal treatment? Why didn’t the City and TriMet provide adequate replacement shelters to begin with?
So what you are telling me is that EVERY Streetcar stop – EVERY SINGLE ONE – has more ridership than EVERY SINGLE TriMet stop that does not have a shelter?
I never claimed this.
And that EVERY Streetcar stop that has an “enhanced” shelter has more ridership than EVERY TriMet stop that has just a regular shelter?
I never claimed that either.
If you’re going to keep making extreme characterizations, and then attributing those sentiments to me, I’m not going to continue in this conversation with you. In the past you’ve characterized my posts as “clearly biased” but you’re the one distorting the discussion here.
First of all, I don’t know if there is an award for comment of the year, but there should be. And Dave should get it for this one:
I find it comical there’s a female buttocks in many of the streetcar “simulations”, yet many less people in the BRT.
Erik’s comments are downright conspiratorial. The first slide he referenced shows no shelter for BRT, true. But, when you deconstruct it, the reason is rational. BRT’s definition for this project includes queue-jump bus lanes at intersections. So, in the BRT picture, the width of the lane moves the shelter out of the picture. It’s there, it just doesn’t show up because the BRT lane exists. In the streetcar picture, the shelter is one lane closer to the street, and makes it in the picture. Conspiracy theorists see might this as an attempt to submarine the BRT project. OK. And I imagine the bench not being under shelter in the BRT slide is to punish those awful people for choosing BRT. Or possibly, you are just spending too much time scouring the data for things to criticize.
I don’t doubt there is a preference for streetcar on this project – it appears more rational than BRT on a number of levels. But arguments based on deep-rooted conspiracy theories don’t exactly advance the conversation. Perhaps we can return the discussion to more pleasing items, like the female anatomy.
If you’re going to keep making extreme characterizations, and then attributing those sentiments to me, I’m not going to continue in this conversation with you. In the past you’ve characterized my posts as “clearly biased” but you’re the one distorting the discussion here.
No, but you ARE justifying the enhanced Streetcar stop amenities such as the oversized, decorative platforms.
Erik’s comments are downright conspiratorial. The first slide he referenced shows no shelter for BRT, true. But, when you deconstruct it, the reason is rational.
Yet when I demonstrate an example of two photographs where the platform amenities are clearly visible for a bus stop and a Streetcar stop (that Bob tried to argue against), I pointed out three distinct differences that show the Streetcar platform has more amenities (wind screen, larger shelter, bench located within shelter) than the bus platform (no wind screen, smaller shelter, bench located outside the shelter).
Until such time that Metro releases a revised document that reillustrates the bus platforms as having IDENTICAL platform amenities, the pictures are the proof.
BRT’s definition for this project includes queue-jump bus lanes at intersections. So, in the BRT picture, the width of the lane moves the shelter out of the picture. It’s there, it just doesn’t show up because the BRT lane exists.
First of all, I appreciate the fair reference to the buttocks.
Second, my entire complaint with the document was that they showed some things, and not others. That’s not really fair.
Yes, there’s a nice turning lane in the BRT “picture,” but no shelter. Is that fair when the document is designed to help form public opinion?
To me, that’s a little bit of bias. I don’t know or think it was intentional, but the BRT parts seem to me like they were added after streetcar was chosen to make a comparison, and nothing more. I agree, streetcar is a great choice for this project due to existing ROW’s, alignment, populations, etc. It works.
But I want it to be a fair fight regardless of what I want. Butts weren’t brought up to make any point other than that the BRT slides looked like they grabbed a sophomore student to make some slides cause they forgot to simulate an alternative. They miss a professionalism I saw in the streetcar designs.
But arguments based on deep-rooted conspiracy theories don’t exactly advance the conversation.
I agree, and will not attempt to find humor in discussions in the future. In addition, we should recognize our biases that occur, and find ways to eliminate them from future studies.
I think in this case, the biases could be fair, but in other studies they might not be so fair.
We have to be sure that we don’t take this as a cover-all model going forward because the models were unsatisfactory, the communities were passive, and nobody cried. Just because it was an easy sell on this one shouldn’t eliminate the need to play your hand in the game.
I’m a little surprised I’m the first to mention the front page Oregonian article in the Thursday edition.
Anyone else think it’s just a little strange that many of the still considered routes are in bus route-rich Southeast Portland? And that Milwaukie/17th Aves. and Tacoma St. connect to… nothing? (They probably left out the proposed Lake Oswego alignment that’s part of another project.)
If you don’t mind me jumping in on this and going somewhat off topic –
In the case of the new Sprinter service, while they are using DMU’s but since the organization did not want to bother with FRA testing, the trainsets (Siemens Desiro Classic) were dubbed as Light-Rail Vehicles and limited to 55mph. Sprinter runs during the day but the last run is around 10pm to allow a BNSF freight local do work along the line. According to the rules, Sprinter and a Freight Train can not be allowed on the same subdivision at the same time.
You can get an idea of what WES will be like when it’s going
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CH1q8mrfz3g&feature=related
I had an opportunity to ride Seattle’s Streetcar (as well as Amtrak Cascades and several bus routes) today.
The Seattle Streetcar actually operates IN ADDITION to bus service; its route is duplicated by at least two different bus routes.
While there are several development projects going on near the Streetcar line – there are numerous development projects all throughout Seattle. This development clearly would have occurred with or without Streetcar – South Lake Union is an extremely valuable area, close to marinas (with yacht access) and downtown, and several employment centers (notably the Fred Hutchison Cancer Center).
When I rode, I would say that there were few riders. Maybe ten at most. We passed numerous stops at speed without stopping; the Streetcar didn’t even slow down or hestiate (unlike Portland’s Streetcar, which I’ve ridden and stopped even if no one requested the stop nor anyone on the platform). Several of the riders were obivious tourists; in fact another man and his two children were from Portland and simply riding the Streetcar the same as us.
Most of the Streetcar stops were plain – they had some nice shelters but they were nothing more than a roof and a support – like the “bus stop” shelter in Metro’s Streetcar plan (but not like the “Streetcar” shelter). One Streetcar stop was actually nothing more than a platform and a sign; it even lacked a ticket vending machine. (The TVMs on the platform are redundant, as there are also TVMs onboard the cars, which are identical to Portland’s. The platform TVMs are similiar to, but not identical to, a parking meter (which are identical in Seattle to Portland.)
Most Streetcar stops lacked benches.
It should also be noted that the Streetcar line paralleled trolleybus lines so that overhead there were two separate sets of overhead wire – one for busses, one for Streetcar. On our outbound run to the Hutchison center, we were delayed for two minutes as a car blocked our move across the intersection. A trolleybus has the capability of moving over one lane, so a small obstruction won’t stop a trolleybus dead in its track. (However, it should also be noted that I did not count a single trolleybus in operation today, every bus I saw was a diesel or hybrid-electric.)
The busses I rode were busy, one had standing room only (despite a mid-day Saturday run, and on an articulated bus). Busses were clean, with padded seats.
Complaint would be that downtown bus stops seemed “dated” – they were older bus shelter designs, but were much larger than TriMet bus shelters – in some cases three or four times larger. This would be an area of improvement for King County Metro, but the existing shelters are functional even at stops in which I could count in excess of 20 passengers waiting.
The Seattle Streetcar actually operates IN ADDITION to bus service; its route is duplicated by at least two different bus routes.
The #17 shares about 2/3 of the route and then heads off in a completely different direction. According to the maps, the route is not “duplicated”.
Here is the South Lake Union Streetcar route map (which notes the bus lines):
http://www.seattlestreetcar.org/map/
Here is the King County Transit route map:
http://transit.metrokc.gov/tops/bus/area_images/SystemMap_208.pdf
Portland’s streetcar route is overlapped in places by the #77 and #15.
I’m not sure what you’re advocating for here: Should streetcar service “duplicate” existing bus routes, or should streetcars provide new/alternative service? Which do you prefer?
Most of the Streetcar stops were plain – they had some nice shelters but they were nothing more than a roof and a support – like the “bus stop” shelter in Metro’s Streetcar plan (but not like the “Streetcar” shelter).
The Seattle shelters are from the same vendor as the South Waterfront shelters you were complaining about earlier. They are identical in size and construction except that some of the Portland ones have small side panels and some of the Seattle ones don’t. (I don’t know about the artwork options that Seattle may or may not have incorporated.) Both the Portland shelters and the Seattle shelters feature NextBus.
Here’s a photo of a Seattle shelter:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/seattlebonvivant/2106935686/
And here’s a photo of the Lowell shelter which you objected to earlier:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8432373@N08/1152796624/
Both photos were taken on opening weekends of their respective systems.
Note that Seattle’s shelter, while missing Portland’s side panels, has a larger sign and a larger NextBus display. There is some kind of panel etching art/logo in the Seattle shelter, but it is difficult to make out through the crowd.
Both of the Portland/Seattle platforms are of a similar size and construction. You called Portland’s “oversized”, are you prepared to level the same criticism against Seattle?
Another photo of a “plain” Seattle streetcar stop:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/seattlebonvivant/2106938056/in/set-72157603441018558/
And another, complete with 4 carolers, perhaps to match the 4 motormen (motorpersons?) in the Portland photo:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/seattlebonvivant/2106972290/in/set-72157603441018558/
“”I had an opportunity to ride Seattle’s Streetcar (as well as Amtrak Cascades and several bus routes) today.””
~~>So here’s the story!
Alright Erik, lets here the part where the S.L.U.T gets stopped by an arrogant chick in a big chevy pickup truck!
I see that you completely ignore the stop located at Virginia & Westlake. This stop has nothing more than a platform that is raised to match the height of the Streetcar (as well as maintains compatibility with busses) and a bus stop sign.
Give me image posting privileges, I’ll prove it to you. (Could it be because you don’t want to admit that a Streetcar stop does not have to be anything more than a bus stop?)
The Seattle shelters are from the same vendor as the South Waterfront shelters you were complaining about earlier. They are identical in size and construction except that some of the Portland ones have small side panels and some of the Seattle ones don’t.
In Seattle, the shelters are SMALLER than many bus stop shelters (in Seattle). Bus stop shelters often are 3/4s enclosed and include benches; bus stops include other amenities. In comparison the Streetcar stops; although more “decorative” than the spartan bus stop shelter, provides less than a bus stop shelter.
We’ve gone over Portland’s track record with improving bus stops – so do we want to rehash it out? How many of Portland’s bus stops have shelters? What is TriMet’s recommendation from its own “Bus Stop Guidelines” document on its website, and is TriMet abiding by its own recommendation when it comes to funding new bus shelters? How many bus stops have TriMet’s “Transit” Tracker (in reality it’s “MAX Tracker”) electronic signs? Let’s compare with, oh, London, UK?
About the **ONLY** point you have for which I can disagree (with Seattle) is Seattle’s use of NextBus for the Streetcar but not for busses. Especially for an operation that one can ride round-trip in 26 minutes (including a several minute layover at the north end) having this seems like an unnecessary operating expense that provides little benefit – as opposed to, say, a long distance commuter route to East King County.
However Tacoma’s Streetcar (ahem, Light Rail) does not use NextBus. Tacoma Link’s shelters do tend to be larger and more decorative; however Tacoma has some pretty nice bus stops as well. Tacoma also installs lights (both area and signalling) at ALL bus stops; something that TriMet has installed at only a very, very few stops (one such stop is Barbur Blvd. southbound/outbound at Dartmouth).
I see that you completely ignore the stop located at Virginia & Westlake.
You never mentioned it before, so how could I ignore it? That’s the first time you’ve mentioned “Virginia” or “Westlake” in this entire discussion.
In Seattle, the shelters are SMALLER than many bus stop shelters
Doesn’t change the fact that they’re exactly the same size as the streetcar shelters in Portland. Why are they the right size for you in Seattle but not in Portland? Portland’s streetcar has far higher ridership per route mile (thus far) than Seattle’s, so doesn’t it make sense for Portland have shelters at least as big as Seattle’s?
so do we want to rehash it out?
I’ll leave that up to you.
How many of Portland’s […]
I guess you decided to rehash it anyway.
TriMet’s “Transit” Tracker (in reality it’s “MAX Tracker”)
No, Erik, it’s Transit Tracker. You “completely ignore” the web and phone-based interfaces. I agree there should be more real-time display signs at bus stops in addition to MAX station, but indeed the system tracks _transit_, not just MAX.
Give me image posting privileges, I’ll prove it to you. (Could it be because you don’t want to admit that a Streetcar stop does not have to be anything more than a bus stop?)
So now you’re accusing me of somehow withholding some kind of privileges (which don’t exist) because I don’t want to “admit” something? Go use Flickr for your photos, like I did — anyone can use it, and knock off the accusations.
Erik, I’m going to speak frankly here:
I’ve put up with your crap and your slander long enough. I’ve not censored your comments because I believe in keeping a discussion as open as possible and because you’ve had a good share of informative posts over the years.
But your little vendetta against my character has gone far enough. Go blog somewhere else if all you want to do is pick fights and level false accusations. If you insist on repeating this crud, I’m going to ban you from PT. I’m sick of it, I have better things to do, and I’m sure our readers (those who are left) are sick of this little feud as well.
oyyy!!
Gentlemen, I beseech you!
Can’t we all get along?
I don’t know if this will help to make peace, but as a Seattlite who was just down in Portland this week and amazed at your streetcar ridership, the key difference between our (packed) buses and (comparatively empty) streetcar has nothing to do with fancy shelters, ticket machines or the like. It’s 100% routing — the SLUT doesn’t carry many trips since there is almost essentially zero housing along the route.
It remains to be seen whether the SLUT will draw housing development around it — at present, nearly all the land within a block of the line is zoned commercial. This seems like a mistake to me, but I’m only an amateur.
Now I get it,
THE S.L.U.T!
duh!?
The original acronym might have been “South Lake Union Trolley” before it was changed to “South Lake Union Streetcar.” (The developer denies it.) But “SLUS”? Seriously? If you’re going to call it something like that, at least make it sound like an actual name, like MAX, WES, or BART.
But there are people who sell “Ride the S.L.U.T” t-shirts, and I guess a fair number who use that acronym conversationally. The unofficial name probably will stick, at least until the powers that be come up with something that doesn’t make you sound drunk when you say it.
Officially, the whole thing is just called the “Seattle Streetcar”, and the one and only line (thus far) is the South Lake Union Line … and that project was referred often as the South Lake Union Streetcar.
I think Seattle Streetcar will probably become the common name once (if) the system is expanded beyond the initial starter line, but the grassroots crass acronym will never be totally forgotten and will continue to circulate among critics and snarky supporters alike.
But your little vendetta against my character has gone far enough. Go blog somewhere else if all you want to do is pick fights and level false accusations. If you insist on repeating this crud, I’m going to ban you from PT. I’m sick of it, I have better things to do, and I’m sure our readers (those who are left) are sick of this little feud as well.
Bob, I didn’t make a single damn character attack against you, and now you’re threatening me. I believe I made a pretty honest post about what I felt was a comparison between Seattle and Portland’s systems, and YOU jumped on my back left and right.
YOU seem to feel that I should have no opinion, or at least no ability to respond to your posts because YOU seem to think that you are right and I am wrong.
If you are getting so angry at me, it must be because you have no valid justification to argue any of my points, other than to get into a pissing match with me – and now you are getting on your Moderator’s Soapbox to threaten me from discussion on this forum because I bring a unique point of view and feel strongly about it.
The ONLY thing I said was that there is a Seattle Streetcar stop that lacks any amenities, and you tried to bring up the fact that the other Streetcar stops have what you argue are the same amenities. I feel I’m perfectly justified in stating that you are ignoring a fact. Your assertion that “it never came up” – did you actually ride the Seattle Streetcar as it was implied? (If you have no personal recollection, I apologize for thinking you did; however I will state that at least I take the time to ride other transit systems to do comparisons between other cities and Portland, as well as ride various routes – so that I can compare to the level of service afforded on the 12-Barbur line and other routes that I take on a regular basis.) You’ll notice that I can admit when I’m wrong and I have (which I pretty much just did in the last sentence.) However I won’t back off from my assertion that TriMet, Metro and the City of Portland gives crap service to bus riders here when it comes to providing similiar amenities to bus passengers here in Portland, and it’s even so much as proven in official Metro documents that you so graciously provided the link to (a bid to your statements that I don’t give you any credit.) (And when you try to counter-argue the points, I counter-argued back, and you got mad at me.)
So, ban me if you want. Will it make you feel any better about yourself that you can show muscle? Will it help your cause, whatever it is? (The only thing I can see it doing is shutting up a bus supporter, so that you can eliminate discussion of busses here – but still call this a “transportation” forum.)
If you had some decency, you’d address it privately. You have my e-mail address. But since you want to engage in your public piss-fest, one that other members have asked you NOT to engage in, have fun doing it.