|
Are streetcars a better fit for the transit mall than light rail trains? Streetcars are smaller, slower and more appropriate for downtown, frequent-stop, circulator service. They would be safer than long light rail trains, intermixed with buses and private vehicles, which will also run on the mall when it reopens.
The current plan is to route the I-205/Green and the Interstate/Yellow Light Rail Lines on 5th and 6th Avenues. These are large high capacity regional trains that, unfortunately, will be forced to snake up and down the Transit Mall slowly, causing unnecessary travel delay for north-south inter-regional passengers. This is similar to the delays now experienced by east-west passengers as they creep through downtown on the Blue and Red Lines.
The Yellow Line would be faster and attract more passengers if it did not detour across the Willamette River in order to slog though the downtown on the transit mall. If it stayed on the eastside where it would provide rapid regional north-south service, streetcars could fill the void on the mall. A streetcar loop on 5th and 6th Avenues would provide more efficient frequent circulator service than would large light rail trains.
In the future, this loop could be extended north via Station Way to connect to the streetcar system in the Pearl District. This would allow streetcars to operate between the Pearl District and Portland State via Union Station and the Transit Mall.
0 responses to “Should Streetcars Run on the Transit Mall?”
An article about the possibility of streetcars on the transit mall, in a different configuration/role, is available at HawthorneStreetcar.org:
http://www.hawthornestreetcar.org/apm/article.php?id=13
(Disclosure: I am the webmaster of that site and an advocate for the return of streetcar service to that corridor.)
Why would you make what I am guessing would be 90% of the people on the yellow line from N PDX trasfer in order to get downtown? Can’t image that many people in NoPo have any interst in taking MAX to Milwaukee
Yes, most of the future riders of the Milwaukie MAX line will be traveling to and from work and school in the downtown core. Metro’s modeling and trip forcasting shows that the line will have its heaviest ridership as it crosses the Willamette River.
Yes, not building a new bridge over the Willamette River is a cheaper option. However, not building a new bridge would once again put the region’s collective head in the sand on the issue of river crossing capacity.
This issue will incrase in importance as the Sellwood Bridge literally teeters towards closure. Even if the money is found to rebuild this bridge, construction will worsen congestion of all transportation modes for years to come.
JW,
If one excludes trips entirely within fareless square, TriMet’s current Yellow Line boarding information indicates that trips between the Interstate Corridor and the CBD scarcely account for 50% of the total Yellow Line ridership.
Furthermore, it is hard determine how many trips are taken downtown in order to transfer to other routes by passengers destined to non-downtown locations. Perhaps many of these transfers would be faster on the eastside.
A little late, as the tracks have already been put down.
I agree – the MAX is slow through downtown. I blame that on Portland’s short blocks (nothing to be done about that) and the fact the the stops are too close together (Galleria/Pioneer Square)
Also, would going south from the Rose Center require some complex switching/tunneling? (I think Bob R. made a master post on this a year or two back).
Lastly… once the ‘preferred’ Milwaukee line is in (that touches the South Waterfront), it should be relatively cheap to add “Maroon” and “Gold” lines that head south to Milwaukie rather than through downtown.
The inevitable solution is a subway through downtown. It’s the only option that takes riders to the locations in the central core that they want to go without taking too much time.
It would also be quieter, allow for longer trains, have less possibility for car accidents and pedestrian injury, and have a greater line capacity.
The only question is how long Portland’s going to wait before constructing it. I thought it would be cheaper to do it now, but it looks like it won’t happen for another 50 or so years.
“It would also…allow for longer trains”
No it wouldn’t, because the entire system is designed for 2-car trains. Many stations can not be easily converted for longer trains (Washington Park and most of Interstate Ave. leaps to mind). You could run express trains that stop only at the few stations that could be expanded, but there are no passing tracks to accomodate that set up. I find it mind-boggingly shortsighted that we are in the process of constructing stations that can never handle more than 2 cars.
There’s clearly a need for a subway east/west through downtown. You could cut the number of stations downtown in half, while serving the same streets (an entrance at 3rd and an entrance at 5th, leading to a platform directly under 4th), cut travel time significantly (fewer stops plus faster travel times because the trains wouldn’t have to wait for traffic lights) and you could get rid of the slow spots the MAX hits now coming over the bridge. It would also give us the potential to build an extra track on each side to allow the Blue Line to run express through downtown, making the Gresham-Beaverton commute competetive.
Unfortunately I’m cognizant of the fact that this is fantasy, at least for the time being. The system still needs to be build out, and new lines are almost certainly going to take precedence over existing lines. I do hope that one day we can make this happen though.
Grant –
I agree that it is short-sighted not to provision for future longer trains at difficult-to-construct stations such as Washington Park.
However, the in-median surface stations along Interstate Ave. and Burnside, for example, would not be especially difficult to expand. Some substations would have to be moved and the trackwork would have to be reconstructed, lanes adjusted and crosswalks relocated, but it could be done.
Such expansion may not be needed for awhile… the individual outer lines have plenty of room to carry more trains per hour before lengthening the trains becomes a viable project.
The real bottleneck in the system is where all the lines converge on the same infrastructure — the Steel Bridge — and also crossing the downtown street grid. These two obstacles limit the total number of trains per hour.
But, if an eastside N-S route as Jim proposes is constructed, those trains can bypass the Steel Bridge and downtown (but not the Rose Quarter bottleneck without a lot of reconstruction of that area) — or, if a subway is constructed which allows trains to be unconstrained by the bridge or the downtown street grid — then many more 2-car trains per hour can run than the current limitations imply.
If/when such a subway is produced, I do believe that station excavations should allow for future 4-car trains, even if the finished visible station/platform area only accommodate 2-car trains.
Lance,
Yes, Metro’s modeling shows that the line will have its heaviest loads as it crosses the river but that does not mean that most of the lines ridership is destined downtown or that the riders crossing the river have downtown destinations. Metro has not yet released its trip forecasts from modeling an eastside alignment.
Only about 40% of the current riders on the bus routes in this corridor (#31, #32 #33, #41 and #99) have downtown destinations yet these routes still carry their heaviest loads as they cross the river. The current route configuration requires most passengers to go downtown to transfer to other routes.
Future river-crossing capacity in this corridor may be an issue for general traffic but not for transit. And this bridge will not carry general traffic. The Hawthorne, Morrison, and Burnside Bridges have the capacity to carry many more buses and streetcars.
Light-rail across the Steel Bridge, (not this corridor) has a limit of about 30 trains an hour (9,000 passengers packed onto two-car trains). By not running the Yellow Line over the Steel Bridge, there would be more time for ridership on the Blue, Red and Green Lines to grow to the point that the capacity of a subway would be needed for these lines.
New York has a fabulous subway system, but the streets there are clogged with traffic. San Francisco has the 10-car BART system and traffic almost as bad as New York. Some people say another Transbay Tube is needed even though BART runs 4-car trains on off-rush hours that are less than half full in both directions. A subway in Portland may similarly fail.
A streetcar circulator would make a neat little connection to the Pearl District via Union Station. The return point on Northgate could be shared with the Eastside Streetcar Line – make a note of it! Not a bad idea, Jim.
A few years back, I drew up and submitted a route proposal for a rail connection between the Transit Mall and the Portland Streetcar line, via Hoyt and the NW Broadway ramp to the Broaday Bridge. I figured the Broadway Bridge would be a good back-up route for MAX trains should something happen to the Steel Bridge.
Maybe we should consider some streetcar line to connect MAX on the Transit Mall to Goose Hollow for a secondary thru-route east/west?
Jefferson/Columbia-1st Ave-Hawthorne Bridge-OMSI? Omigod, such a streetcar line could connect to Milwaukie MAX line too. What a dynamic fellow I am. Ho dee ho. Doh dee doh.
They would be safer than long light rail trains, intermixed with buses
What is the proposal to make sure that if this happens, that busses will not be unduly delayed because of the massive number of LRVs that will have to share the same space?
Right now, TriMet is already favoring LRVs by giving LRV priority signal pre-emption over busses on the Mall. Is this just another nail in the coffin for TriMet to nudge people to ride the train – “The train is faster…because we make the busses wait”???
I’m a bit unclear on the proposal here. The mall project is well into construction, with a pile of federal money already invested. Certainly, we don’t want to back out on a half-constructed project, even if its support wasn’t unanimous.
Light rail trains will run on the mall. There is no question about that now.
The question should be how we supplement this service in the long-term with complementary projects. Running streetcars on the mall is a long-term possibility only if a downtown subway system is eventually realized.
An eastbank light-rail bypass is eventually logical, but the appropriate timing would be when the city is ready to redevelop the CEID into a true extension of the central city. Between the industrial sanctuary and the soft development market, this does not currently appear as important as building out the base system (Milwaukie, Vancouver, Tigard, etc). Perhaps this is more appropriately handled as a component of the upcoming Central City Plan. We should plan for the eastbank bypass line, reserving space for it as development occurs.
Streetcar on the mall: Hahhaha, the current streetcar route through downtown can hardly hold the capacity, I can’t imagine it handling the demand on 5th and 6th. MAX was built for capacity, even though it’s only 2 cars, it’s MUCH more roomier than the streetcar.
At least the Mall route is being built with stations every 5 blocks south of Burnside, and every 4 blocks north of Burnside. This is quite the contrast to the original line, which was built with stations every other block.
Pre-emptive over buses: Erik, the MAX trains will operate with the buses just as it was done in the past with buses only. In the past, the center-lane buses had to give right-of-way to the buses leaving the curb, especially when the signal changed.
MAX will be the same thing, buses will have to let MAX leave its station to re-enter the center lane flow of traffic. So what if they have to pre-emp the buses, it doesn’t change the way it was done before.
I’m not really a fan of the downtown subway. It would be very expensive ($2+B), and we could get most of the same benefits by simply removing/moving a few stations.. The only reason we haven’t removed those stations has to do with political will, nobody wants to lose their station.
As for running longer trains, the same could be said of any system: For instance, the NYC subway can only handle certain size trains as well, and I bet at rush hour they’d probably like to run longer ones, but they can’t. Same for BART, same for most Amtrak platforms, etc… At some point you have to make a trade off between how long you are going to make the platforms and how much you are going to pay to build the system. And I’m not about to call anyone short sighted for that trade off without seeing all the evidence. But the evidence in Portland points to the fact that we either need to build a subway, or close a lot of streets downtown in order to run longer trains in the first place, and so the fact that Washington Park station may require a couple million to enlarge doesn’t strike me as that big of a deal…
Sorry for the double-post, mods can delete the first one.
I also want to emphasize that I’m not laughing at Jim, but at the idea that a streetcar is supposed to handle MAX-grade loads. If the capacity is not there, or too full, people will be discouraged to use it.
In other words, we NEED longer trains during rush-hour, especially due to the Steel Bridge bottleneck, and a streetcar isn’t going to solve that, IMO.
Unit,
Running streetcars on the mall would not require any major changes to what is currently under construction. There would be no serious problem running both the MAX Green Line and streetcars on the same track and they could share the same stops. Since the Green Line will run only every 15 minutes during the off-peak, one or two streetcars would reduce the headways at their shared stops to a more respectable 7.5 to 5 minutes.
Jim –
It’s not an insurmountable problem, but our current streetcars are 6″ narrower than MAX trains, which means a 3″ wider gap at platform edges, enough of a gap to pose problems with tripping, stuck ankles, etc.
For MAX and streetcars to share a platform, we’d either need wider streetcars (which might not be compatible with the existing streetcar alignment tolerances), or we’d need to outfit the current design with “gap fillers” at the doors. The San Francisco MUNI cars use an arrangement like this in the subway, I don’t know how practical it would be to add to current or future Inekon/Skoda style streetcars.
That being said, let’s suppose for a moment that in the future there is a sudden jump in capacity requirements, and the construction of a subway is still years-off. Under such a scenario, we could rapidly increase the transit-carrying capacity of the transit mall by running buses in the new left-side lane. BRT-style buses have doors on both sides, and could immediately begin running in the left lane. Streetcar tracks could also conceivably be run down the left lane as well, although underground utilities may be too difficult to relocate to allow that to happen.
Chris Fussell,
Lack of capacity on the mall should not be a problem.
The excellent ridership on the streetcar has a lot to do with it’s routing. It serves an exclusive corridor between the Northwest and South Waterfront Districts serving also The Pearl District and PSU. No other mode can operate over this route. On the other hand, the transit mall is much shorter and will be served by, not only the Green Line, but over 2,000 buses every weekday.
Thanks for the clarification Jim. I’ll bite on your idea, as I love it as a long-term plan.
My question/suggestion to you pertains to the implementation plan. The Mall will open with the Yellow Line as planned. I hope we can agree on that.
There is a planning process well underway for the Yellow Line extension to Milwaukie that is one opportunity to consider your proposal in lieu of the proposed S. Waterfront crossing. Such a swap seems unlikely at this point, but is certainly possible.
The next opportunity would be to build the eastbank section as a standalone project – operate it as a parallel line, say the Orange Line. As has been suggested before, the Orange Line could run Expo Center – Milwaukie, but bypass downtown, using the new alignment instead. This could double the frequency of trains for those along the Yellow Line.
Where do you think this project fits?
Of course, the central problem here is too many riders are destined downtown. There is no “there” on the eastbank right now. Changing this is a massive and long-term undertaking with a long and costly project list – Remove or reduce the sanctuary zoning; Remove the eastbank freeway; Bury the UPRR line; Build the eastbank park. CEID doesn’t become a great place to live and work until these happen in some form or another. Demand for an eastbank line doesn’t spike until it becomes a great place to live and work.
It seems to me that the eastbank line, while a worthy idea, doesn’t become worthwhile to build until the plan for the eastbank puzzle is complete. Until then, the 2-mile detour serving the core area of demand seems like an appropriate interim route.
Wells,
Unfortunately, transit comparisons cannot be made between New York City and… anywhere else. Also, the subway system is considered “very successful” and “visionary”.
—
PortlandTransport readers… If we’re talking about a subway, or another MAX line, then why aren’t we talking about a truly visionary transportation system for the Portland region the includes reforms of MAX, Tri-Met buses, our bridges, our street infrastructure, highways, everything? One that takes into account expected population/job growth to be relevant 50/100 years from now? Let’s Do It!
MAX will be the same thing, buses will have to let MAX leave its station to re-enter the center lane flow of traffic. So what if they have to pre-emp the buses, it doesn’t change the way it was done before.
So what you’re saying is that there will not be dedicated traffic signals for MAX – they will operate using the same signals as the busses, and MAX trains will be required to yield to busses that are stopped at a platform when MAX is in the center of the street?
So what you’re saying is that there will not be dedicated traffic signals for MAX – they will operate using the same signals as the busses, and MAX trains will be required to yield to busses that are stopped at a platform when MAX is in the center of the street?
Semantics. Does it matter if it’s the same device?
All that should really matter is that everyone gets through as fast as possible, fairness be darned.
So what you’re saying is that there will not be dedicated traffic signals for MAX – they will operate using the same signals as the busses, and MAX trains will be required to yield to busses that are stopped at a platform when MAX is in the center of the street?
Good response, I’ll get back to you on that.
I do see some MAX-dedicated signals going up at some intersections, not all, so I’m not quite sure what’s been decided. I left TriMet when MAX was to be in the left lane, and buses in the right lanes. IMO, that’s the way it should have been built.
Most subways in Europe only serve the central city… perhaps a Hawthorne subway that starts on 205, has a stop near Pioneer, one in the Pearl, and the terminus in NW Portland, could finally get some decent ridership on our transit network. (on top of doubling the bus network, of course – I do not want to come off as a rail only fan).
What if you could get from NW 23rd and Glisan to Hawthorne and Division and 205 (and could transfer to the Green Line MAX) in about 15 – 18 minutes? Do you think more people might ride MAX?
I left TriMet when MAX was to be in the left lane, and buses in the right lanes. IMO, that’s the way it should have been built.
IMO, it should have been opposite:
Most busses have doors on the right hand side. If busses travelled down a left-of-center lane, with a platform between it and MAX, then a bus rider would be able to transfer from bus to MAX by walking ten-to-twenty feet – the distance from the bus side of the platform to the MAX side of the platform.
(Obiviously not all bus lines would be able to connect in this manner, so TriMet would have to determine which bus lines have the greatest transfers to MAX and put their stop opposite MAX, with bus lines that have fewer transfers a block ahead or behind the MAX stop.)
Further, MAX would be able to load/unload from both sides of the train at all downtown stops.
Such a platform arrangement would ensure that there is adequate shelter space for bus and MAX riders, while leaving the store-front sidewalk open for visibility. Further, this would eliminate the “weave” or serpentine or whatever it is called – TriMet’s version of giving MAX priority and leaving busses at red lights to make way for MAX, because the two wouldn’t intersect as they make their way up and down the mall (in fact it would increase capacity, because right now if there is a bus and a MAX train waiting, only one can go. In the bus-platform-MAX-platform scheme, both would have a simultaneous green light – thus increasing vehicle velocity through the Mall.
It’s just another example of TriMet’s planning for bus service. (Don’t!)
perhaps a Hawthorne subway that starts on 205, has a stop near Pioneer, one in the Pearl, and the terminus in NW Portland, could finally get some decent ridership on our transit network.
Wouldn’t a Monorail accomplish the same thing, and be much cheaper, easier and faster to construct?
A Monorail line out Powell sounds interesting…Gresham, then 122nd, then 82nd, then Foster, then 17th, then PSU, Pioneer Courthouse Square, Union Station.
Unit,
I agree, the Yellow Line will be moved to the mall when it reopens.
Nevertheless, travel forecast modeling could indicate that an eastside alignment could attract more riders than a downtown alignment. Frequency, speed and the ability for passengers to easily transfer to routes that serve downtown as well as many other destinations are more important factors than is providing a single seat ride to the CBD.
As long as high quality transfer facilities are built, there is no need to make land-use, freeway or railroad changes on the inner eastside at this time.
It seems to me that the eastside alignment should be seriously considered, especially if the modeling shows good ridership numbers. An expensive bridge could put the whole project in jeopardy. The bridge, the connection to the mall and the extra trains needed for the longer slower route through downtown amount to about 1/3 of the total projected $1.3 – $1.4 billion cost. Less than $1.1 billion has so far been identified from federal and state resources leaving a funding gap of $200 –300 million.
Jim,
I may not agree with you on this overall plan, but you do bring up a lot of very valid points. I very much respect the time time and energy that you have put into your Eastside MAX proposal.
Metro has promised that they would model your plan and share the results. As a member of the Citizen’s Advisory Committee, I will continue to push them to deliver on this promise.
While planners debate about “corridors” versus “centers,” Jim’s proposal brings up the important point that with transit, we need to be considering “networks.”
It is ironic that in the early 1980’s when both TriMet and the City of Milwaukie were advocating for Light Rail to be considered as an alternative to widening McLoughlin, the City of Portland and Metro both argued against building a Milwaukie line because, according to their analysis, most potential riders in the corridor were not headed downtown. At the time, cross-town buses were in some disrepute, so a cross-town LRT line was not viable. Following the 1984 realignment of east-side Portland bus routes, to more of a grid system, cross-town ridership has grown, and it is time to consider more than a radial rail system.
Focusing on destinations in the Central East Side is a mistake. What is important are the connections, both east and west-bound. The large numbers of current transfers from south-bound Yellow line to east-bound Blue line, and reverse, show that transit passengers, like motorists, have dispersed destinations. Any given transfer opportunity will serve a minority of riders, but multiple opportunities, with frequent connections, will serve far more riders than point-to-point service, or even “corridor” service.
Regarding the vehicle width problem, I would solve that (when the time comes) by moving the Green line trains back to the cross-mall alignment, and bolting on platform extensions.
If a Barbur LRT line is built before a subway, then service on the Mall could even be switched back to LRT.
I will be curious to see what Metro’s ridership analysis shows about Jim’s proposal.
I think Jim’s last comments are a good illustration of his lack of understanding about transit planning.
Having a fairly good understanding of the Metro travel demand model myself (using the model, and working directly with the data and the staffers building it), I can say that making transfers (the opposite of a one-seat ride) has one the highest disutilities. Meaning that ridership is negatively impacted when transfers need to be made. Of course Metro knows this – why do you think all the MAX lines end downtown? They have been doing this work with Trimet for decades now – the effect of transfer in the travel demand haven’t really changed. The variable of ‘speed’ is directly related to this: transfers = much slower speed of the total trip = less riders. Frequency of connections help, but not nearly enough to offset the waiting and inconvenience of transfers.
The following comment really takes the cake:
“…there is no need to make LAND-USE (emphasis mine), freeway or railroad changes on the inner eastside at this time.”
Basically, Jim is suggesting that there is no link between land use and transportation here. If there was no change in land use in the Central Eastside (adding new jobs, housing or receation) WHY would there be a corresponding increase in trips that were destined for that area??! And why would there be a need for more transportation to this area??
Of course this is silly. The reasons MAX ends in the downtown area is…LAND USE. Downtown is where the major employment is, where housing is, where shopping and recreation is, where PSU is (still the #1 trip generator!!) and etc.
Thankfully the people doing the actual planning, modeling, and New Starts application know these things. Otherwise the good folks at the FTA would be having some pretty good laughs right now…
As I’ve said before on this board – planning is much, much more than taking out the colored pencils and drawing some lines on a map.
I support light rail, but do you realize that the Milwaukie project is going to cost over $3,000 for a family of four in the Metro area? And there literally hundreds of thousands of people that will see no benefit at al from its construction? Just something to think about when criticism of other projects comes up, to highlight how much hypocrisy there is in analyzing projects…
Let’s wait and see how the Green/Yellow MAX runs on 5th & 6th Avenues before we monkey with it; I like two lines serving the Mall and PSU.
Stations are a bit farther apart than on the Cross-Mall routes which will help travel times.
Adding the thru bike/auto lane as sought by downtown businesses is what put the curves in the MAX tracks and increased bus/MAX mixing.
But we all knew this was more than a transit project from the get-go. re MAX in traffic…given the downtown signal speeds of 12 mph, its not hard to see all kinds of vehicles and pedestrians managing to mix. Isn’t this what happens on Yamhill/Morrison now? Seems to work.
And please don’t put us transit riders in a tunnel; I need every bit of sunshine I can get.
Getting back to Jim’s streetcar turnaround point on Northrup, say the turn is at 11th. The eastside streetcar line can turn at the same point, according to one option. Then, instead of turning on Lovejoy, turn on Madison and head straight back to Union Station. Huh? Huh?
I’d say the problem holding up needed development of the “Eastside Industrial Sanctuary” is the UPRR main line. Relocating the UPRR main line under Grand Ave is a good idea whose time will come.
I have to disagree with Zachary Horowitz position on transfers. The problem isn’t transfers per se, as much as the time waiting for the transfer. Transit systems cannot function without transfers. Thus, transfers must be built in to the system.
With UPRR tracks relocated, the eastside will become a magnet for development and a much busier district.
Because the Burnside, Morrison and Hawthorne Bridges carry many bus lines, timing these lines would reduce the wait time and make transferring to/from a Water Ave LRT line to downtown and new, preserved eastside destinations convenient.
Hey Lenny, the Yamhill/Morrison mix of transit and traffic is much different than the Transit Mall mix. But nevermind.
My fear is that car traffic on the Transit Mall will compound the same kind of backups that occur daily when motorists try to make left turns off Morrison and Yamhill.
I suggest ‘no left turn’ signs be installed at the worst intersections, starting with Yamhill and 6th, and Morrison and 6th. There’s too much pedestrian and car traffic at these two intersections. There are probably other intersections on 5th and 6th that will have the same problem that may be resoved with ‘no left turn’ and even ‘no right turn’ signs.
Wells:
What did you think I meant when I said transfers are a disutility? Of course that includes waiting time! My point is that Jim’s proposal puts in transfers where they aren’t needed, and just for the sake of making transfers. He really has no idea that the extra time to make those transfers and the limited land uses around the stations would be a bigger detriment to building the line to run downtown (slowly) and actually serve real destinations in the first place. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that the Milwaukie line could not meet New Starts criteria under his proposal! But let’s not be realistic here – whatever…
Move the UP tracks? Wow you must be a dreamer! Let’s not forget which transportation mode was there first.
Have you ever done any actual transportation planning? Just askiin’…
With UPRR tracks relocated, the eastside will become a magnet for development and a much busier district.
I thought I-5 was the obstacle?
IMO, blaming the railroad (or the freeway) as an obstacle to development is a simple Portland excuse towards developing light rail. Numerous cities (namely, Seattle and Tacoma) have very successfully developed areas around mainline railroads and freeways – the Museum of Glass/Foss Waterway district is successfully connected to downtown Tacoma despite a six lane freeway (I-705) and a FOUR-TRACK-BNSF-MAINLINE (that’s two more tracks than the UP in East Portland, if you’re counting). A successful new state history museum is next door to the new Federal Courthouse which occupies the former Northern Pacific railroad terminal, and is linked to the Tacoma Convention Center and the UW Tacoma campus by “light rail” (Portland would call it a Streetcar), which also leads to a massive transit center which offers commuter rail, local and commuter busses, Greyhound, and a 3000+ parking garage for park and ride users (as well as a downtown transit center, both of which have complete Pierce Transit trip planning and ticket sales offices — unlike Portland whose TriMet downtown ticket office isn’t even on a bus line).
Incorporating Jim’s suggestion, why not relocate the Amtrak station from Union Station to a new mixed-use facility between the Burnside and Morrison (or Morrison and Hawthorne) bridges? There is plenty of room to build appropriate rail sidings for Amtrak (and possibly commuter) trains to pull off, while allowing UP freight trains to bypass the station without having to slow down to 6 MPH (which they do at Union Station). A station with an accompanying intermodal transit center with bus service throughout the region right outside the front step would make it easy for Portland visitors to get around, instead of having to exit Union Station, find the 9 bus, head downtown, find your bus or MAX stop to take you somewhere else…?
An Eastside MAX line would stop right out front of the new Portland Intermodal Station. The new station would incorporate European railway terminal designs and would include a shopping mall, food court, and other amenities for the public.
Thus you have a destination, and a single point to which transfers between modes (including Amtrak and Greyhound) could be accomplished with minimal delay. And if there are delays, at least you have a destination to burn time at, instead of a three foot by five foot utilitarian bus shelter (if you’re lucky to have that).
There are planners and then there are visionarys…we need both.
Actually, the Central Eastside will continue to transform itself (for better or worse) once the economy digests the most recent boom, but when (not if) we remove I-5, the bridge ramps and deal with the UP mainline, then it will explode, and we will have a new city on our hands; then it will be time for a MAX line there. Not sure I will be around.
Did not suggest that Yamhill/Morrison is perfect or identical to 5th/6th, but it does accommodate a mix of modes including MAX, bikes, motor vehicles and lots of pedestrians without too much trouble. The fact that lightrail can run as a streetcar at 12 mph on the street and then move at 60 mph on separated ROW is the whole point.
Move the UP tracks…
One question: where?
Move the UP tracks…where?
That’s easy: once the eastbank freeway is removed, you have a nice brownfield corridor to dig a RR trench (roughly from SE 2nd & Harrison to NE 1st & Lloyd), remediate, and cap with a park. All with little-to-no interruption of mainline RR traffic.
Is that the portion you want to be underground? Given the grade requirements of freight rail, the approach to the tunnel would need to be a lot longer than that.
I think these are great ideas, but given the cost of removing I-5 and compensating for the lost capacity (i.e., widening 405), plus constructing this mega freight rail tunnel, we are leaving visionary and entering fantasyland.
Perhaps in the post petroleum economy it will not be so hard to dismantle I-5, a piece of the mid 20th century folly. Especially as the value of central city land goes up and up.
Jim Howell has done a very detailed analysis of where and how the UPRR mainline can be accommodated in a tunnel…along with high speed passenger rail…with light rail on top.
Re: grades, I think the approaches could work. On the south end, the rail is already grade-separated (under the street network) until 8th Ave. That leaves plenty of length for grade. On the north end, there is considerably less due to the Steel Bridge.
But this is somewhat irrelevant, since the elevation of the cap is flexible. The RR is set at whatever grade works, and the cap is built around this fixed elevation, which might vary over the length of the cap. A creative Park design makes it work.
As for cost….calling this a long-term vision could be considered an understatement. Just an idea meant to show it’s possible.
Lenny: Visionaries and planners – I agree – a very good point. But to be a visionary, at least to have change happen in a generation – one needs to be realistic. And many of the posts on this topic – not realistic.
Post-petroleum yes. But post-(electric)car – not in 100 years. You vastly underestimate the importance of personal transport.
Remove I-5? I don’t think so.
I would prefer to see ‘visions’ that actually take into account what is feasible – that top 10%, not the top 0.1%.
I’m guessing that the folks at UP would have a field day with Jim’s suggestions and ‘detailed analysis’. I haven’t seen it myself, so that’s just a guess based on his other suggestions.
Folks – this isn’t SimCity.
The most logical tunnel to relocate the UPRR mainline into is under Grand Avenue. It’s about 1 mile and 1/4. There are no functioning spurs on the UPRR mainline as it crosses 11 intersections along SE 1st. Trains just pass through. With the UPRR relocated, the Hawthorne Viaduct could be demolished as will be necessary some day. The big cost of this tunnel is relocating utilities under Grand Avenue. There is some grade descent where Grand Ave is at its lowest elevation, a few blocks south of SE Stark.
I-5 is only an obstacle to east bank riverfront restoration and redevelopment. The UPRR mainline has more impact on the eastside than I-5. I think I-5 traffic could be relocated to I-405, but I-84/I-5 South traffic must remain somehow. We’re just not there yet for removing I-5 from the Eastbank of the Willamette. Oh well.
Having previously worked in the central eastside area, the bigger obstacle to redevelopment (only in my opinion) was the mammoth Grand/MLK couplet –
eight lanes that felt like a stranglehold on the neighborhood. Curious if anyone else would agree.
Although removing/burying I-5 would be nice, I don’t believe it’s really standing in the way of increased development in the central eastside. Most all of PDX’s vibrant neighborhoods are not next to the river – NW Portland does not have ready river access and it’s separated from downtown by a freeway.
Most all of PDX’s vibrant neighborhoods are not next to the river – NW Portland does not have ready river access and it’s separated from downtown by a freeway.
The Pearl isn’t next to the river? The South Waterfront isn’t next to the river?
Keegan. Grand and MLK are certainly obstacles. Too much traffic going too fast, four lanes is one too many. Putting in the streetcar line should have the effect of slowing traffic down a bit. The four intersections at Burnside and Couch are the worst, and the Burnside/Couch couplet will go far to accommodate pedestrian travel and enable Burnside Bridgehead development.
Access to the eastside waterfront would be greatly improved with the UPRR mainline relocated under Grand Ave. I think there’s 16 trains a day that pass through. Don’t be surprised if that estimate is low. All train operations would improve with a tunnel. Crossing gates removed, streets rebuilt, new sidewalks, underused lots developed. Light rail lines would be an absolute necessity as a back-up route, possibly on SE 1st rather than on Water Ave.
In my opinion an eastside bypass for the Yellow line doesn’t become viable until the Yellow line is extended into Vancouver. Vancouver provides the area with a fair number of jobs, I could see a significant increase in demand for the bypass from people who commute to Vancouver every day (assuming the Yellow line ends up close enough to the places people work). At that point you could have a Yellow and an Orange line… until that point I think it makes more sense to send the line downtown.
“Post-petroleum yes. But post-(electric)car – not in 100 years. You vastly underestimate the importance of personal transport.”
The only electric cars that you can buy new today, (for less than $100k,) can’t go on the freeways. And given the 20 year lag time between design and common usage, (Hybrids came out 10 years ago, and were designed 15 years ago, but they are still less than 2% of the market.) But unless there are plans to reduce the speed limits on the freeways to 35 mph so that electric cars and scooters and everything else can use them, I don’t see freeways lasting more than 40 years in the future…
Too bad the CRC doesn’t have a lane for low speed traffic. If you want to take a scooter to Vancouver, you have to go up to the bridge of the gods and back right now, and you still will after they build the new bridge.
jfrane wrote: The Pearl isn’t next to the river? The South Waterfront isn’t next to the river?
SoWa? Yes. Pearl? Um, no. There’s that thing called a RAILROAD (the BNSF mainline from Union Station to Lake Yard), Front Avenue (ahem, I meant Naito Parkway, south of the Fremont Bridge)…
I agree with Keegan:
the bigger obstacle to redevelopment (only in my opinion) was the mammoth Grand/MLK couplet –
eight lanes that felt like a stranglehold on the neighborhood
The UP mainline is tiny compared to Grand/MLK. And just has been proven in Tacoma (has anyone been to Tacoma? It’s a short trip up on Amtrak Cascades or I-5, whichever you prefer) the railroad AND a freeway, side-by-side, is NOT an impediment to development. Tacoma SUCCESSFULLY development a museum district, a waterfront district, a Convention Center, a Transit Mall (including Light Rail), and a college campus in a very small area. (There’s even a railroad spur that cuts through the UW Tacoma campus but it is in the process of being removed; it was not a desirable railline anyways as it had a very steep grade to climb.)
If you demolish I-5, where is it going to go? It isn’t just going to disappear, and I-405 cannot accomodate eight lanes of traffic unless the idea is to create MORE gridlock in downtown Portland. Remember – 85% of trips taken in Portland are auto based. Unless Portland gets off their butts and starts increasing bus investment in this area by 10,000% (that’s right!) or makes huge investments in affordable (not subsidized) housing along MAX and Streetcar lines which includes rent/price caps on all new housing within city limits, people are still going to choose the car over public transit.
If we are going to demand that all waterfront property be developable, then why aren’t we in a rush to redevelop Oaks Park, Powers Marine Park, the Oaks Bottom, the area south of OMSI (the Ross Island complex), etc.? Even Paul Allen sees no rush in developing his stretch of riverfront property – despite his huge real estate developments in the Seattle area. (And he even has light rail access!)
Actually, both RRs and freeways do present major impediments to development – at least if you want residential as part of the mix.
RRs create a conflict because of the need to sound the horn at grade crossings. Since most urban neighborhoods would require grade crossings, you get a lot of horn use. This is a significant obstacle to any residential sales; HUD is generally averse to funding any housing near grade crossings for this reason. Residents who buy condos near grade crossings often report dissatisfaction with their home due to horn noise. This can be mitigated – FRA has mitigation requirements for “quiet zones”, to address just this situation. So, it’s not impossible, but it’s certainly a challenge.
Freeways’ impact on development – this one is pretty obvious. No one wants to live next to a freeway, and the effect is apparent in every major US city. Freeway-adjacent parcels are disproportionately derelict, vacant, or abandoned, even in prospering cities. Noise, pollution, and health effects are the primary reasons. Note that in the Pearl and SoWa, these will be the last to be developed. Possible? Of course – but relatively undesirable.
Re: Grand/MLK…I heard somewhere that connecting 99E to the “ghost ramp” on the east side of the Marquam Bridge by the Holman Building would eliminate up to 1/3 of all traffic on the couplet. I also heard that ODOT is constructing the new viaduct without any consideration for such a connection in the future (despite the fact that the connection is in the RTP.) They planned for it in the 1960s but not in the 2000s. That’s depressing.
Re: Grand/MLK as a barrier…
No question it is somewhat; one way to address this is Grant’s suggestion – although this of course further complicates I-5’s eventual removal. Another is to develop a one-way street grid on the east side, similar to that on the west. This would allow reduction of MLK/Grand to 3 lanes each, and other streets to carry some of the load (i.e. 2nd/3rd, 6th/7th, 9th/10th, 11th/12th). Ultimately, such a grid could extend from south of Hawthorne up to Broadway-Weidler, and from the river to E 11th/12th.
Removing I-5 isn’t impossible – it just requires a plan to handle the demand somewhere else. I-405, I-205, and the eastside street grid all have a role to play.
RRs create a conflict because of the need to sound the horn at grade crossings. Since most urban neighborhoods would require grade crossings, you get a lot of horn use. This is a significant obstacle to any residential sales; HUD is generally averse to funding any housing near grade crossings for this reason. Residents who buy condos near grade crossings often report dissatisfaction with their home due to horn noise. This can be mitigated – FRA has mitigation requirements for “quiet zones”, to address just this situation. So, it’s not impossible, but it’s certainly a challenge.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG!!!!
Tacoma has built numerous condos right across a street from the FOUR TRACK BNSF MAINLINE that hosts THREE TIMES AS MANY TRAINS AS THE UP MAINLINE THROUGH SOUTHEAST PORTLAND.
Several housing complexes have or are being built IN THE PEARL DISTRICT, WITHIN ONE OR TWO BLOCKS OF A GRADE CROSSING THAT REQUIRES TRAINS TO USE WHISTLES on either end of Union Station.
A NEW FOUR-STORY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT in McMinnville is being built RIGHT NEXT TO THE TRACKS at the east end of downtown on 3rd Street – INCLUDING THREE FLOORS OF SENIOR CITIZENS APARTMENTS.
The HUD supported New Columbia development has THREE RAILROAD GRADE CROSSINGS LOCATED LESS THAN 400 FEET FROM HOUSES WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT.
The railroad crossings on the far west and eastern edges of the MAX Blue Line fall under partial FRA regulation, and MAX trains can honk their horns if necessary. They have standard MUTCD compliant railroad crossing devices including bells.
A new mixed-use development in Lake Oswego was built a few years ago – TWO HUNDRED FEET FROM A GRADE CROSSING.
I would like to see the HUD regulation that specifies that properties near active railroad lines are to be discouraged for funding. State specific regulation and link. There are literally THOUSANDS of homes right in the Portland metropolitan area that are near railroad lines and grade crossings – and I don’t see “dead zones” near the railroad tracks of boarded up homes. The reason why the area closest to the railroad tracks in the Pearl have been the last to be developed has nothing to do with noise, it has to do with contaminated dirt. There are quite a few buildings that are completed alongside I-405, while there are several blocks near Union Station and the Post Office that are undeveloped – one would think that being on the Transit Mall and close to Amtrak should be a highly sought after amenity for “Green Living” Portland.
(Oh, and SoWa is next to a freeway. Under the logic of people don’t want to live by freeways, SoWa shouldn’t exist.)
“Rs create a conflict because of the need to sound the horn at grade crossings. Since most urban neighborhoods would require grade crossings, you get a lot of horn use. This is a significant obstacle to any residential sales; HUD is generally averse to funding any housing near grade crossings for this reason. Residents who buy condos near grade crossings often report dissatisfaction with their home due to horn noise. This can be mitigated – FRA has mitigation requirements for “quiet zones”, to address just this situation. So, it’s not impossible, but it’s certainly a challenge.”
Agreed. My father was renting an apartment just off of Union Station, and when his lease was up he moved, to a less nice, but more expensive unit, on the other side of the building specifically to avoid the train horns.
Not that putting it in a tunnel is always a perfect solution either. I live above the railroad tunnel in N Portland, and I can normally tell when a train goes by. It is like a 2.0ish earthquake: you’ll notice if the room is quiet and you are standing still, but you might miss it if the refrigerator is on. But that does affect different people differently, I was at an open house down the street from me when a train went under us and it scared a perspective buyer away, (they were totally freaked out: they yelled and stood under a doorway,) but the Realtor couldn’t even feel it even after it had been pointed out. That said, I do prefer the train in the tunnel to the noise of a TriMet bus or a large truck, and I think most people would agree with that: in the North Portland Streetcar DWG meeting last night quite a few of us wanted to electrify all the bus lines (that aren’t going to become streetcars) for noise, pollution, and peak oil reasons…
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG!!!!
Using San Diego as an example, not quite. Lots of people bought condos near railroad tracks in quite successful buildings.
Now the city of San Diego is starting long-term planning for moving the tracks underground or grade separated, due to the noise complaints. Quiet zones are a more likely option, but now that enough people live there it’s become a political issue.
You can build and sell near railroad tracks, but they won’t achieve their full potential with train whistles across the street at all hours.
Thanks for the discussion on Grand/MLK, folks. That was my first time posting on one of my favorite blogs to check in on.
Quick comments –
jfrane – this is why I said “most” in my comment. I’m thinking NW PDX, Belmont, Hawthorne, Mississippi in terms of close in neighborhoods that have seen plenty of new development but have no river access to thank for it. Would river access be a big bonus for attracting investment and redevelopment in the Central Eastside? Of course. But there is more at play than just that.
Central Eastside presents other questions and challenges anyway. It’s not a former brownfield or section of the city full of derelict warehouses a la the previous identities of SoWa or the Pearl. It’s a major employment center full of businesses big and small.
Anyway, don’t want to delve too off topic. I think the redevelopment possibilities and conflicts of this neighborhood offer plenty of material for several discussions on this site.
There is a lot to be said for keeping the pace, direction and scale of development/redevelopment in the Central Eastside right where it is now.
Old warehouses are being converted to offer affordable office space to start ups; older manufacturing is hanging on; hardware and home restoration has a strong presence. It is a mix other cities would die for.
I-5…as much as I dislike it…keeps the lid on land prices, helped along by the Industrial Sanctuary zoning, not to mention the UPRR and the bridge viaducts. All in all a gritty but very productive district close to downtown, but not cute, trendy or any of that.
I expect that Grand/MLK will be much improved by Streetcar…more traffic lights for peds, a bit less aggressive traffic and some new development in those retail/commercial zoned blocks along the couplet. PDOT could slow the traffic flow this afternoon by adjusting signal speeds, and may do this when more pedestrians are on the streets riding Streetcar, etc. There is some great architecture along Grand as well as some excellent retail…like Next Adventure. Could be the next big thing…so watch out.
Jim’s idea for light rail makes sense when the employment and residential density of the area get to a level comparable to downtown…that is a long way off.
The 4 lanes of MLK and Grand make them an obstacle. Any street this width encourages speeding. When a streetcar rolls along this couplet, it will do so at a more steady pace, thus setting a trend for motorists to follow. Large curb extensions of streetcar stops make a clear signal to motorists to slow down.
The UPRR along SE 1st doesn’t compare well to any of the examples Erik Halstead cites. Anyone who drives, walks or bicycles through the eastside industrial sanctuary experiences the 5-10 minute wait for trains to pass. The 11 intersections on SE 1st add to the sense that these railroad crossings are an extreme obstacle. The only solution is to relocate the UPRR into a tunnel, the most logical route below Grand Ave.
The incumbrance I-5 presents on the Eastbank of the Willamette is to its restoration as a natural waterway. I-5 does not incumber eastside development. If I-5 thru-traffic were diverted to I-405, the traffic remaining to accommodate is the I-84 connection, 99E to I-5 North, and westside to I-84 and I-5 North. Thus in the future, it may be possible to downsize Eastbank I-5 and redesignate it as an I-84 and 99E connector, and access to the westside – a modest downsizing that offers the means to revegitate the dirt and rock riverbank. The Esplanade would no longer be cacaphonic under the Morrison Bridge.
The UPRR along SE 1st doesn’t compare well to any of the examples Erik Halstead cites. Anyone who drives, walks or bicycles through the eastside industrial sanctuary experiences the 5-10 minute wait for trains to pass.
Clearly, you’ve never been to Tacoma, where the FOUR TRACK BNSF MAINLINE THAT HOSTS THREE TIMES AS MANY TRAINS AS THE UP IN EAST PORTLAND is located directly to the west and north of a major railroad yard, and directly to the south of a major grain export facility – thus, lots of very slow moving trains and back-and-forth trains. Yet there are condos going up right next to the tracks and a museum district with museums on both sides of the tracks. And the famous Chihuly Bridge of Glass:
http://www.chihuly.com/bridgeofglass/projectdescription.html
http://www.museumofglass.org/visit/bridge-of-glass/ (Yes, the initial picture showing the various glass artforms – that is one wall of the Bridge of Glass.)
The UP, in East Portland, has few if any switch movements.
Five to ten minutes is not a very long time. If there was so much concern for it, since the elevation of Grand/MLK is higher than Water Avenue, a very easy solution would be to connect Water Avenue to Grand/MLK with a viaduct over the railroad track. This could easily be done from Water to Stark, or an S-shaped viaduct similiar to the viaduct over the BNSF mainline between Yeon Avenue and the entrance to Terminal 2.
Even building two bridges is a far, far cheaper – and just as effective – solution than a tunnel. Not to mention that leaving the tracks in place allows for Portland to build an eastside railroad station to replace Union Station – thus creating an actual eastside destination that would also serve as an intermodal hub for busses, Streetcars, possibly light rail, and possibly commuter rail.
Wells: Large curb extensions of streetcar stops make a clear signal to motorists to slow down.
Do you have documented proof that the average vehicle speed on 10th and 11th Avenues have declined since the introduction of the Streetcar?
As a frequent traveller along S.W. Harrison Street (using all four modes of available transport, but mostly as a pedestrian) I could hardly agree with the statement that the introduction of the Streetcar has slowed down traffic.
Erik, Would you please just chill out. The mainline through Tacoma is almost completely grade-separated, nothing at all like East Portland. A 5-10 minute shutdown of traffic crossing the tracks there makes significant redevelopment impossible.
Jim Howell has a proposal to relocate I-5 next to the tracks, taking out the blocks between 1st and 2nd and closing all the crossings permanently. Like that idea? Or, just leave I-5 where it is, build your ramp on Stark or wherever, and close the crossings permanently. I still say a tunnel under Grand is the best option, but whatever.
Curb extensions signal motorists to slow down, period. The wider the street, the faster the average traffic speed. A steady moving streetcar will similarly reduce traffic speeds. It’s common sense.
Erik, Would you please just chill out. The mainline through Tacoma is almost completely grade-separated, nothing at all like East Portland. A 5-10 minute shutdown of traffic crossing the tracks there makes significant redevelopment impossible.
Why should I chill out? By pointing out flaws in the logic? By pointing out misrepresentations? By pointing out a very similar situation which was resolved through a much less expensive manner, and created a pedestrian friendly, mixed use environment that incorporated museums, an urban area, a convention center, a college campus, a transit mall, and a streetcar line – without building a billion dollar tunnel and a billion dollar freeway project?
If you want me to chill out, then explain why Portland can’t emulate the success that Tacoma had. Explain why Seattle successfully developed its waterfront, and built a world-class Sculpture Park right next to another busy railroad line. Or that Lake Oswego built a public plaza next to a railroad line? Or Salem’s Waterfront Park, located between a busy four-lane street and a railroad line, and the river? Or Vancouver’s waterfront that is south of a freeway and railroad track? Explain each point that I have brought up, and why it won’t work.
Don’t just suppress my opinion by telling me to “chill out”. It seems that because I bring up valid points that you don’t want to hear, your only recourse is to use abrasive language like “chill out” because you can’t adequately argue against my point.
I think there’s a forum guideline here that you’ve violated, too. But I guess the Moderators have no problem with putting the rules aside when it involves me, because I bring up valid points that are in direct contrast with certain members here who can’t successfully argue their points.
Erik wrote: I think there’s a forum guideline here that you’ve violated, too. But I guess the Moderators have no problem with putting the rules aside when it involves me,
Erik, I haven’t argued with you or commented on your remarks or warned you about the rules in any way for 40 days, under the theory that my earlier interactions with you were escalating your invective and degrading the quality of conversation in this forum. I see now that you treat everyone here with a similar of disdain and the exasperated tone that you had used toward me.
I’ve let you step over what I consider the line several times, because in the past when I’ve asked you to calm down you’ve cried “censorship”. You’ve done it again here when someone asked you to “chill out”, you accused them of suppressing your opinion.
If you want me to strictly enforce the rules against others, then you’re going to have to calm down and be more respectful to others yourself.
Which shall it be? Unrestricted remarks from Erik with no interference from me, or strict application of the rules?
So I take it that anyone has free rein to tell me what to say, think and do…
When I express my opinion, I am told to “chill out” with the FULL BACKING AND SUPPORT of the Moderator.
It seems that you are using a tone that is not only supportive of someone who is in clear violation of the rules, but is infact as the Moderator even going so far as to endorse the tone – AND uses it yourself!
If you want me to “respect” others then that respect needs to be earned:
1. A public notice to Wells that his comments were in violation of rules #1, #2 and #4 of this board,
2. A public apology for your statements which endorses Wells’ violations of the rules.
Again, please indicate specifically where in this thread I have violated these or any other rules – you will not find them, therefore your commnts directed at me are unfounded.
Thanks, once again, for turning a debate into another discussion thread about Erik. I have tried repeatedly to point out that the proposal in this discussion is unnecessary and even pointed out a SPECIFIC EXAMPLE of where it is proven, but once again hard cold facts are too much to handle – thus Erik needs to “chill out” so that we can get back to discussing how Portland can continue to spend extravagant sums of money on more rail projects at the expense of bus projects.
(I note that I have even pointed out several newsworthy items regarding busses in the “open thread for new topics” but none of them have seen the light of day. Apparently more evidence of the bias…)
A couple of selected inflammatory quotes from Erik over just the past 7 days:
Erik, I let you have free reign on this site for 40+ days, and I was content to let it keep going, but you called out the moderators specifically, which is why I responded to you yesterday.
If you’re going to shout “Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG!!!!” at people, and tarnish light rail advocates as haters, then don’t get offended when someone asks you to “please just chill out”. I hope I’ve put that plainly and clearly so we can move on.
Erik, I didn’t violate the rules because my request that you chill out was politely offered with “Please.” Maybe I should have asked, “Pwetty pweease.”
Portland Eastside Industrial District would have to permanently close all intersections that cross the UPRR mainline and build overpasses in order to redevelop like Tacoma. And still the redevelopment wouldn’t turn out anything like Tacoma. I don’t see any other way to redevelop there other than to relocate the UPRR mainline into a tunnel under Grand. But, whatever.
Portland Eastside Industrial District would have to permanently close all intersections that cross the UPRR mainline and build overpasses in order to redevelop like Tacoma.
Hey, finally! An actual response to a post from me that doesn’t harp on me! Congratulations!
So, you state that all of the intersections would have to be closed. Why is that a negative? Why couldn’t a pair of overpasses be constructed to serve the local traffic in the narrow strip of land – keeping in mind that there is already an existing ramp from the Hawthorne Bridge into the area?
And still the redevelopment wouldn’t turn out anything like Tacoma
Why not? It doesn’t have to be exactly like Tacoma, but Tacoma (and Seattle) proves that a railroad mainline and a freeway are NOT an obstacle to good development.
I don’t see any other way to redevelop there other than to relocate the UPRR mainline into a tunnel under Grand
That’s because many people here in Portland that brought us the Streetcar, the Tram, the Light Rail system, the Flanders Bridge, and so many other hugely expensive projects refuse to admit that there are effective, lower cost options that work just as well.
Portland has a hard time with fiscal restraint. Maybe it’s time Portland starts to understand “Well, if I spent $10 million here, that’s $10 million that gets cut from somewhere else…”
And in TriMet’s example, light rail gets the gold plating while bus service gets CUT, CUT, CUT.
Do we NEED a tunnel under the ESID? What are you prepared to cut to pay for it? Are we willing to give up 20 years of rail-based transit projects? Or schools? Or fire protection? Or parks?
I’m curious what Erik and others mean by the value of “redeveloping” the EID. Does this mean converting lofts to condos and installing more coffee shops and boutiques? Because what I see in the EID is a somewhat chaotic but thriving light industrial area and in my book this is more valuable to a city than acres of new condominiums.
If someone is going to get trains off-grade, though, they should start with 11th and 12 avenues below Division. A nightmare.
Jim Howell has a plan for the UPRR mainline at the 11th/12th crossing as part of the Milwaukie LRT project. Jim can you post it?
Gil Kelly, the City’s Planing Director, repeated last night at a PSU class that the City is very happy with the diverse, chaotic mix in the CEID. The job picture is evolving from light industrial to commercial, design, etc. as one would expect. But no living allowed; no condos. Only the Grand/MLK corridor…one block on either side…would allow residential. Otherwise from 12th to the River is Industrial Sanctuary.
Jeff F,
I agree that an industrial warehouse district is important, but they’re certainly not “more valuable”. I think, the city sees an immediate increase in property taxes, new businesses opening up, more wealthy people staying in Portland, and to a lesser extent lower immediate environmental concerns; but has a harder time recognizing the long-term impact of losing industrial capacity.