We’ve featured the critical insights of Joe Cortright here extensively. Now local economist Eric Hovee weighs in with comments submitted to the Columbia River Crossing project record. Some of his points (my paraphrasing) include:
- Look at the whole I-5 Corridor from Woodland to Wilsonville, and examine the impacts on connecting corridors as well.
- Evaluate added crossings, not just replacement crossings.
- Carefully coordinate the transit investments to impact land use.
- Examine the impacts of rising fuel prices.
Read Hovee’s full remarks (PDF, 76K).
0 responses to “Another Economist Weighs in on the CRC”
JK: I spotted a couple things he missed:
Hovee: 4) Carbon footprint savings will be realized less from the I-5 crossing investment than the reshaping of development . .The DEIS appropriately notes relatively minor differences in carbon emissions between the alternatives evaluated.
JK: Actually the CO2 will go up under all alternatives! All you have to do is select your alternative and subtract it from no build. This gives savings. (if negative, stop – that alternative doesn’t even save daily energy.) Now divide the construction by the savings to get the time required to break even. (example: alternatives 2&3 are projected to save about 11 tons of CO2 per day, but construction emits 600,000 tons. Division gives 54,500 days, or 150 years to make up for construction.)
I did this. and got about 150 years for CO2 savings to make up for the construction emissions.
I also got about 135 years for energy savings to make up for the construction energy.
Bottom line: this project will result in a net energy loss and increased CO2 emissions (unless it happens to have a life of more than 135 years.)
Data for the above is in the Energy technical report, Ex. 1-2 & 1-4)
Hovee: can yield substantial carbon footprint savings (compared to the suburban development alternative) in terms of:
• Reduced vehicle miles traveled (VMT) – with more dense development (as the “trip not taken”); and
• Lower CO2 building footprint – as measured both by embodied (construction) and operating (e.g. heating/cooling, electrical utilization and related) carbon emissions.
JK: Can someone point me to actual evidence that this is true? (No garbage from the transit lobby please.)
Since HE mentioned CO2, can someone please show me the peer-reviewed paper that proves that CO2 increases, from the current level, will result in dangerous temperature increases? (I keep asking and no one seems to be able to come up with this key piece of evidence.)
Hovee: 6) Finally, and perhaps most importantly, travel demand forecasting does not appear to adequately account for changes in travel behavior that could dramatically reduce I-5 corridor VMT in the years ahead. The first and most obvious change now underway comprises the effects that fuel price increases have already had on reducing I-5 crossing activity. More dramatic changes in travel behavior are yet to come as residents and businesses find themselves forced by economic necessity to make lifestyle adjustments in response to a sustained greater cost of intra- and inter-regional travel.
JK: Where is the evidence for this assertion? Maybe we’ll just get more efficient cars (like Europe) and drive more than before – that is what happened last time gas prices shot up.
Hovee: A second demographic change also merits added consideration in long-term VMT forecasts.
That is to assess the potential for reduced travel (especially work commute trips) as baby boomers move into years of retirement with a subsequent lower proportion of the region’s population at work.
JK: This will be interesting to watch. Will less work travel be replaced by more leisure travel?
Oh, and will gas prices fall back to below average – that is what happened last time.?
He also missed the cost of light rail in this project: over $4/passenger per mile! It would take gas over $100 / GALLON to match that (we would have smaller cars by then.)
Thanks
JK
I forgot to mention the 40,000 – 85,000 people that will be populating the Oregon portion of the Interstate line per Metro recommended density. If 25% of them (this is Portland’s new TOD territory!) take rail, that will be 10,000, or more, more people on the train – at 266 people each, (Ex. 52) that is 37 trains. Or 9.4 trains per hour, leaving almost no capacity for all those Vancouverites. Or, the opposite- people in North Portland can expect FULL trains and SRO for their commute (if they can even get on the trains.)
Thanks
JK
Just an idea for your idea of Vancouverites commuting: if most are headed all of the way downtown, why not have every other train from Vancouver be some sort of express that wouldn’t stop until downtown? I’m not sure how this would work with headways and whatnot, but it’s at least an idea.
Just an idea for your idea of Vancouverites commuting: if most are headed all of the way downtown, why not have every other train from Vancouver be some sort of express that wouldn’t stop until downtown? I’m not sure how this would work with headways and whatnot, but it’s at least an idea.
In order to do this, they’d have to rebuild the entire yellow line to have pull-out tracks for the stations. I don’t see this happening, since all of the stations are in the middle of Interstate Avenue, unless they just destroy Interstate Avenue altogether.
Referring to the Portland Tribune ‘artist renderings’ of Replacement and Supplemental options, it seems odd that the Supplemental Bridge does not include a pedestrian walkway. Instead, a widened walkway is built on the north side of the old ‘northbound’ bridge.
I believe the most good can be achieved with light rail alone. And if practical, the southbound lanes bridge could be constructed alongside light rail. But why omit the pedestrian walkway from the Supplemental Bridge? In other words, why serve pedestrians and bicyclists last?
The CRC presentation at Expo showed that reinforcing the foundations of the old bridges is more extensive and thus more expensive than I figured.
Still, couldn’t the Supplemental bridge (with light rail and a walkway) be built first at reduced costs, and a new northbound bridge be built eventually, instead of reinforcing the old bridges?
Oh well….
Headways on the yellow line are 15 minutes. I’m sure they could time it so that express trains that only stop 2 or 3 times are possible.
What about commuter rail from Vancouver to Union Station?
JK examines ridership issues: [If] the 40,000 – 85,000 people that will be populating the Oregon portion of the Interstate line […] take rail, that will be 10,000, or more, more people on the train – at 266 people each, (Ex. 52) that is 37 trains. Or 9.4 trains per hour, leaving almost no capacity for all those Vancouverites
Capacity is an important consideration, and one big limitation on overall capacity is the bottleneck of Rose Quarter and the Steel Bridge, which will have to be addressed sooner than some may expect.
However, JK’s analysis is making some assumptions which make the conclusion seem worse than it may actually be:
1. Those 10,000 riders won’t all be boarding in the same peak hour.
2. Those riders won’t all be taking the train, there are a lot of bus service in that corridor.
3. Many of those riders will be transferring at major points such as Lombard, or taking shorter trips than downtown, and thus won’t be occupying a train for the entire journey.
4. Newer train designs (with delivery slated for the fall of 2008 and full operation after the Green Line opens) have a higher passenger capacity than current trains.
Take those factors into consideration, and 10,000 additional N. Portland transit boardings in the morning rush are actually achievable. Not easy, and the Rose Quarter bottleneck will have to be addressed before the Yellow Line can run reliably on 6 minute headways (10 trains per hour) and still mesh with the other lines crossing the river.
For inbound commuters, the issue of making sure both N. Portland riders and Vancouverites (is that the proper term?) don’t have boarding conflicts is easy to address: Starting with a southbound empty train in Vancouver, allow riders to board only one car on a two-car train. After the train crosses the river, open the doors on both cars, allowing N. Portland riders to access an (initially) empty car.
For outbound trips, it’s not so easy, but the issue of equity is less of a problem because N. Portland and Vancouver riders will be boarding at the same outbound stations.
Headways on the yellow line are 15 minutes. I’m sure they could time it so that express trains that only stop 2 or 3 times are possible.
When you’re getting into the territory of ridership levels like JK suggests, headways will already be down to well under 10 minutes. Plus, N. Portland riders represent a diverse array of origin-destination pairs — express service between only a few points may not serve enough riders to relieve crowding or justify a separately-scheduled train.
However:
What about commuter rail from Vancouver to Union Station?
This is certainly possible. Such a service could serve riders who regularly commute all the way from Vancouver to downtown Portland, independent of MAX. (And, given proper transit service or pedestrian connections between wherever MAX is routed in Vancouver and the Vancouver commuter rail station, riders who miss a commuter train because they have to work late can just catch an off-peak MAX train to return to their origin.)
Bob R.:This is certainly possible. Such a service could serve riders who regularly commute all the way from Vancouver to downtown Portland, independent of MAX. (And, given proper transit service or pedestrian connections between wherever MAX is routed in Vancouver and the Vancouver commuter rail station, riders who miss a commuter train because they have to work late can just catch an off-peak MAX train to return to their origin.)
Or, we could implement commuter rail on an existing rail corridor that already hosts high speed (79 MPH) Amtrak trains and requires little to no capital investment above and beyond new rolling stock; ignore the CRC for a few more years; and if you miss the train, C-Tran will still operate a BUS that will take you to Vancouver.
Yes, alternative transit forms do include a BUS. After all, what mode of transport is relied on when MAX breaks down?
Yes, alternative transit forms do include a BUS.
I do believe I just mentioned that already, in this thread, at 10:17am this morning. But thanks for reiterating it.
If the kind of demand jk deposits really exists, rush-hour express buses could handle a lot of the demand from Vancouver. In addition, if you need more MAX capacity, put four tracks on the Steel Bridge. The East-West lines (Blue to Hillsboro, Red to Willow Creek, and Green to Beaverton) use the two tracks on the south, and the Vancouver-bound Yellow line uses the two tracks on the north. No need to mesh with any other trains at the river crossing.
At that point, the Yellow line could operate with three minute headways. That should be more than sufficient for peak-hour service.
Of course, I meant to say “posits” not “deposits”. I really need to preview this stuff before I post.
Third Bridge now! in rail corridor. Connects West Portland suburbs and neighborhoods to the Great White North—well at least to La Center, WA.
Bob, I’ve heard a report that the Steel Bridge work underway will be installing 4 tracks.
Plus, I’ve been arguing for some time that to solve traffic congestion, suburbs must diversify their economies by bringing jobs, services, institutions and amenities closer to home. Do this, and the rush hour traffic jam will diminish. Building light rail to Vancouver will surely bring jobs there and a lot more.
The MAX bottlenecks at the Steel Bridge and through downtown are only a problem for those who don’t yet realize that there is actually no solution other than to stop commuting so far. Yeah uh huh. Booyah!
Wells asked: why serve pedestrians and bicyclists last?
Because there is a cost to providing this infrastructure and so far there is no existing plan or effort to tax or toll pedestrians and bicyclists. The funds to construct pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure on the crossing is being poached from the tolls and taxes motorists are expected to pay. In other words, instead of paying their own way, pedestrians and bicyclists are freeloaders not making any direct financial contributions to the project.
“Bob, I’ve heard a report that the Steel Bridge work underway will be installing 4 tracks.”
Where did you hear that? I don’t think it is true. But, that is a much cheaper solution to the bottleneck issue than a subway would be.
Wells –
The work on the bridge is to add new tracks down the Glisan ramp. As far as I know from the Green Line / Mall meetings I attended (the last was over a year ago), there are no plans to increase the number of tracks across the bridge itself.
All trains will merge routes to cross the bridge, and diverge again at the opposite end of the bridge.
Plus, I’ve been arguing for some time that to solve traffic congestion, suburbs must diversify their economies by bringing jobs, services, institutions and amenities closer to home. Do this, and the rush hour traffic jam will diminish. Building light rail to Vancouver will surely bring jobs there and a lot more.
This is already being done.
Wilsonville and Tualatin have more jobs than they do residents.
Beaverton and Hillsboro are certainly job centers.
Gresham…could use some work.
Portland – of everyone – has a large expanse between downtown and…the city limits – without a significant business center other than the low wage retail center of Mall 205/Gateway and 82nd Avenue. Airport Way is a fairly successful job center and attracts a lot of workers from East Vancouver and Gresham.
Camas/Washougal have a pretty diversified economy, including Hewlett Packard’s campus. Troutdale also has a pretty strong job base.
Frankly, the problem lies in East Portland, and the “city plan” to force employers to locate downtown and in Northwest. It is not helping that former industrial centers close-in have, or are in the process of, being converted to non-industrial uses – turning more job centers into housing for people that need a job to be transported to.
It should be noted that in The Oregonian several months ago was an article about reverse-commute usage of MAX. It clearly noted that eastside MAX had very low usage, while westside MAX had a significant amount of reverse-commute travel (although still a fraction of downtown commute).
So assuming that the bridge gets built – although I think the issue of the cost is still a big problem – how can we design a bridge that will be aesthetic as well as functional?
I just think its absolute crazy talk to discuss a 4-5 Billion USD bridge when the only designs on the table are for a Glenn Jackson/Marquam style monstrosity. Even with the height restrictions, there must be something we can do…
I dont know much about bridge design, so maybe someone like Bob can weigh in here, but for example, how about a a Cable Stayed design, but with only one cable tower, say on the oregon side… or something. we shouldnt even be talking about spending 4 Billion without a decent design on the table.
for general discussion:
There are several designs of Cable Stayed bridges that might be adapted for use in the Columbia Crossing project.
Assymetric or Side Spar Cable Stay bridges allow the use of only one pylon in the bridge… so even with the ridiculous height restrictions imposed by the Pearson field, we might still contruct a bridge that’s beautiful as well as functional.
Consider a new bridge, supported by a massive, cantered pylon on the Oregon side…
Imagine, the majority of Portlanders will celebrate the day the Marquam bridge is replaced… how could we possibly consider building another Marquam!? And at such a cost! If this bridge is going to be built, I believe we should make sure its beautiful…
According to the Oregonian today, the existing bridge is 240 feet high at the towers, and Pearson has been doing fine with that since 1917.
So what’s wrong with the status quo? Why not grandfather in the existing height, as long as any higher structure is south of the current lift span?
BTW, the runway lines up with a flight path north of the bridge. If the bridge were supported by two really big towers mid-river, with the northernmost tower to the south of the current lift span, Pearson air traffic would pass a half mile to the north on take-off.
The only way it would be a navigation hazard would be for the pilot to make a ridiculously sharp turn to the south immediately after takeoff.
There is an exhibit of a Green Park Covered
Columbia Bridge at The Lucky Lab Brewpub NW on
NW Quimby above 19th st. [in the activity rm.]
This bridge design can be built in the existing
height range , while creating safer crossings in winter , and containing all pollution runoff and
eliminating expensive re-painting for decades.
You know what, Mr Parker? Your argument about pedestrians and bicyclists paying their ‘fair’ share of public infrastructure is just plain BS.
You assume that motorists don’t also walk and bicycle when they choose nor when they aren’t driving.
You assume that infrastructure (roads and bridges) don’t place a “Constitutionally inequitable” impediment upon other means of travel.
You assume that walking and bicycling doesn’t offer a monetary advantage that should be considered with the cost of road infrastructure.
Whatever. My Karma just ran over your dogma. Have a nice time counting your money.
There is an exhibit of Artworks for a – Green –
Park-Covered Columbia Bridge at The Lucky Lab NW
on NW Quimby above 19th st [in the activity rm]
The design will fit in the existing heights w/out towers , while protecting drivers from winter storms , containing pollution runoff , and eliminating expensive re-painting.
Headways on the yellow line are 15 minutes. I’m sure they could time it so that express trains that only stop 2 or 3 times are possible.
If it takes longer than 15 minutes for a regular train to get from the Expo Center to the Steel Bridge, you can’t have an “express” train on the same track, without quad-tracking the whole thing, or having pullouts at the stations within 15 minute headways.
Two trains cannot occupy the same physical space at the same time, without lots of news reports and people being down on light rail.
To run an express, they would have to clear the track – meaning that the stations that don’t get stopped at by the express would have WORSE service than they do now.
Depending on the main terminus in Vancouver, a yellow line trip stopping at every current station would take around 35 minutes to reach central downtown (and less time for other points in between.)
Improved service frequency can do a lot for time savings, separately from consideration of express service. At 15 minute headways, your average daily wait is 7.5 minutes if you don’t consult a schedule (assuming everything else is running smoothly). At 6 minute headways, your average wait is 3 minutes, saving 3.5 minutes each way off your typical one-way journey, and further reducing the need to consult a schedule. 3.5 minutes doesn’t sound like a lot, but that’s basically the same as eliminating 3 stops from the route, which a limited-stop train might do.
Put another way: If we are going to insert more trains in the schedule, let’s just add more normal service trains. There is a time savings benefit for everyone on the route, even without creating a limited-stop or express train.
(Current morning peak Yellow Line travel time from Expo Center to Pioneer Courthouse Square is 29 minutes. I’m guessing that when the mall reopens and the Yellow Line is rerouted, 1 minute will be shaved from this, due to fewer stops but a slightly longer distance… add 3 minutes for a Hayden Island stops and 4 minutes to downtown Vancouver, gets approx. 35 minutes total.)
“Two trains cannot occupy the same physical space at the same time, without lots of news reports and people being down on light rail.”
You should get a job at TriMet; they need that kind of radical thinking.
I suggested earlier that trains run as “limiteds” stopping at only certain stations and skipping others. This can easily be done on 2-track systems (eg, Market-Frankford line in Philadelphia). It would knock several minutes off the travel time and could help solve the overcrowding issue, without decreasing the capacity of the line during rush hour.
Grant, please explain how you run express trains on a 2-track system. Seems to me you need a 3rd track at the stations for the express to pass the stopped (loading) train. There are many times where you have trains loading both directions at a given station, particularly when the Yellow Line reaches the point of 6-minute headways.
One added point: JK raised concern about accomodating all the new passengers on MAX. Good point, here’s a better one. Imagine trying to accomodate all 10,000 in SOV’s.
Wells Says: You know what, Mr Parker? Your argument about pedestrians and bicyclists paying their ‘fair’ share of public infrastructure is just plain BS.
JK: Actually, it is you argument that is “just plain BS.”
Wells Says: You assume that motorists don’t also walk and bicycle when they choose nor when they aren’t driving.
JK: Lets look at some real numbers for the Columbia River Bridge:
bike crossings: 492, ped:74 (6am-8pm, from the DEIS)
cars: 125,000 (City of Portland data)
ratio: 220 : 1
Wells Says: You assume that infrastructure (roads and bridges) don’t place a “Constitutionally inequitable” impediment upon other means of travel.
JK: You missed a little detail: the impediment is the river.
Wells Says: You assume that walking and bicycling doesn’t offer a monetary advantage that should be considered with the cost of road infrastructure.
JK: Then let the users pay their actual cost.
Wells Says: Whatever. My Karma just ran over your dogma. Have a nice time counting your money.
JK: You Karma was wrong (again.)
Thanks
JK
Went to four or more CRC meetings a couple of years ago. Mostly asked for inclusion of design for HRC (nexed! Wanted to save us the $700M.) and for a iconic design (Wanted a Gateway to Ecotopia! also nexed! I think my article in the Tribune a few years ago mentioned the iconic possibilities.). Told “no way with Pearson”. Even told that PDX caused an issue which meant height restraints. (Didn’t believe that one though.) But suggestions were basically laughed and ignored by the engineers who are running the show at CRC. Once they voted against any study of HRC I lost interest in driving to the meetings in the three sites that normally held the meetings. Waste of time. Knew then that a I-205like bridge with Light Rail was going to be most likely. So sad and what a waste of cash (especially the lack of forsight on HRC. I even mention Peak Oil and jet fuel costs then and they just looked at me with dazied eyes and said “Thanks”. Maybe two people on the CRC heard my message (one was the OR co-chair, super nice guy from Port of Portland, sorry but his name is on the site. I think he was the person who got the addendum on HRC and how HRC was outside the CRC Scope.)
Staggered stops (every other stop per train) are the cheapest and best way to increase speeds. Do this now during rush hour now so more trains can be on the routes.
Interesting idea about adding two more lines to the Steel Bridge. Could be a nice delaying tactic until we “WILL HAVE TO” work put in subway lines under streets like 4th and Broadway. At some point, going to 3 and 4 trainsets will be a requirement.
Nice problem to have for our process of “zero carbon footprint” city living.
Ray Whitford
Exactly why do we have to have an “iconic” or “aesthetic” bridge?
I have been to Europe and found many modern bridges, carrying rail as well as highway, that aren’t cable-stayed, arch, suspension, or other decorative designs. They are simple, elegant concrete deck bridges like the Glenn Jackson Bridge. They are functional. They are cost-effective. Seeing an ICE cross over one of these bridges evokes speed and future transport.
Instead we are mired in a debate over an airport that is a part of a National Historic Site, that is completely off-base as to what needs to be accomplished. Instead of discussing the need of the bridge we’re arguing over what a bridge might look like. It’s like arguing over the color of paint used on the exterior of a house or the type of siding it will have, before determining whether one is actually going to start looking at houses to buy and move into; when the larger debate should be whether we need a house, how large of a house, where should the house be, etc.
Give it a rest – Portland is not going to have the Space Needle, or the Golden Gate Bridge, or the George Washington Bridge, or the White House, or the Gateway Arch, etc. I always thought that our equivalent of those would be features like Mt. Hood and Mt. St. Helens, the Columbia Gorge, Multnomah Falls, the Oregon Coast. You can’t build landmarks like those and that’s what makes Oregon different than cities like St. Louis that doesn’t have the luxury of such landmarks, and therefore has to manufacture it.
I-5 is functional, not decorative. If our goal is to make everything purdy then I’m certainly up to restoring Couch and Guilds Lakes to a natural area instead of the masses of concrete and steel that currently grace these former beautiful wetlands.
Exactly why do we have to have an “iconic” or “aesthetic” bridge?
Exactly why do we have to have a 12-lane bridge?
It is good to ask questions, yes?
Exactly why do we have to have an “iconic” or “aesthetic” anything? Perhaps some folks think that major government projects shouldn’t be just the cheapest, most utilitarian possible, but that good aesthetics have a positive impacts on a region’s economy and people’s well-being.
(Of course, the counter-argument is that higher construction costs/taxes have a negative impact on the economy and people’s lives far in excess of any aesthetic benefit.)
But since public support for this project based on recent surveys has been gauged independent of cost, I say let’s build 50 lanes (why be shy?) and stud the bridge in diamonds. That should make everyone happy, except those whose driving is affected by glare and astigmatism.
First, from one person, “Your argument […] is just plain BS.”
And then, from another, “Actually, it is you argument that is “just plain BS.””
Now that we’ve had a bit of tit-for-tat diplomacy, please keep the discourse a slightly higher level of civility. Thanks.
(And yes, I’ve been a past sinner in the civility department.)
Even the head of ODOT at the time, Glenn Jackson, regretted the Marquam Bridge which just about everyone agrees visualy assualts the view from Waterfront Park. Hence at considerable expense I-405 was put on the Fremont Bridge, which is something of a visua wonder itself.
If money were no object, I could be persuaded that we should put three thru lanes in a tunnel, with local traffic and connections made by converting I-5 between Columbia Blvd and Mill Plain into a true boulevard, tearing out all the ramps and replacing them with signals. The existing bridges would become by default arterial bridges with two lanes each way and light rail in the third lane.
MY TRIBUTE TO JIM KARLOCK:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6SCH_5hL0k
“Grant, please explain how you run express trains on a 2-track system.”
What I proposed wasn’t a traditional express train, but one with a “skip stop” system, where, for example, half the stations are served by all trains, and the other half are served by every other train. The busiest transit line in Philadelphia does this every peak period with only 2 tracks. It knocks somehwere between 5 and 7 minutes off the end-to-end trip.
Perhaps some folks think that major government projects shouldn’t be just the cheapest, most utilitarian possible, but that good aesthetics have a positive impacts on a region’s economy and people’s well-being.
This is a rather interesting argument.
Now let’s apply that argument to TriMet’s “most utilitarian” bus system. Because, a well-invested bus system that isn’t just the cheapest, most utilitarian possible, is a bus system that is welcomed, inviting, used, and popular.
People are going to cross the bridge regardless of what it looks like. People don’t choose to cross the Fremont Bridge because it’s more beautiful. And people aren’t refusing to live in SoWa or Riverplace because the bridge is ugly.
Now let’s apply that argument to TriMet’s “most utilitarian” bus system. Because, a well-invested bus system that isn’t just the cheapest, most utilitarian possible, is a bus system that is welcomed, inviting, used, and popular.
I don’t agree that TriMet’s system is “most utilitarian”, but I do agree that there should be more bus service with greater amenities, and have advocated to preserve and enhance bus amenities in the past. But I’m glad you agree that pure utilitarian/cost considerations aren’t the only consideration for public infrastructure and services.
Bob R. wrote: “I don’t agree that TriMet’s system is “most utilitarian”
Then I’m sure you’ll agree with removing 2/3rds of MAX station amenities (including ALL Transit Tracker signs), 2/3rds of Portland Streetcar shelters (including ALL NextBus signs), removing all sidewalk improvements that were constructed as part of the MAX and Portland Streetcar projects, remove the “plush” seats out of WES and the Wi-Fi service, remove about 80% of the Park and Ride capacity that is used only by MAX and WES, and make sure that only 50% of MAX, WES and Portland Streetcar vehicles have air conditioning? And then returning that excess money that was spent on a select few transit passengers to ALL TriMet passengers by reducing fares down to $1.00.
Maybe your bus stop is one of the few “nice” bus stops, but the vast, vast majority of Portland transit riders (who, by the way, ride a bus) are stuck waiting at a bus stop that if they are lucky is located on a sidewalk, with amenities no greater than a twelve inch by eighteen inch blue and white sign mounted on a pole (sometimes TriMet didn’t even spring for their own signpost) regardless of local conditions or the weather.
If you’re a lucky transit rider in Southwest Portland, namely on the 1, 44 or 45 routes, you have a good chance of waiting for a bus in the middle of an intersection because there is no safe place off the road to wait. On the 12 line many stops are no where near a safe crosswalk or traffic signal in order to safely cross five-lane, 40 MPH Barbur Boulevard.
But God forbid, TriMet spent millions of dollars on “pedestrian improvements” for each MAX and WES station, and the Portland Streetcar included numerous sidewalk and traffic signal improvements.
If it’s good enough for a bus passenger, it’s good enough for anyone else. The CRC can be a plain concrete deck design, with plain ordinary cobrahead lights mounted on plain fiberglass poles (granted they will require the red aircraft lights and be mounted on shorter than normal poles, just like on a portion of the Glenn Jackson Bridge or on I-84 near Providence Medical Center), with big green ugly signs that meet MUTCD standards, in a concrete gray color, with no decorative features at all – right down to the standard jersey-barrier mold of guardrails.
If anyone wants to voluntarily pay for a “CRC Beautification Fund”, there are a lot of banks who are looking for business and would love to start up a savings account for you. After all, one of Portland’s great man-made treasures was paid for through voluntary contributions by school children and interested businesses – today it’s Portland’s most famous railroad, still going strong after 50 years (and it should be noted that regular fare to ride is $5.00, for a round-trip, and it makes money.)
Then I’m sure you’ll agree with […]
Nope.
You’re setting up a false choice. I said that I did not agree that TriMet buses were “most utilitarian”. This does not mean that I do not think that MAX and the Portland Streetcar have more amenities than buses. But I’ve ridden bus service which was quite more “utilitarian” than TriMet. Our service here is more frequent than many similarly-sized regions, with more route choices, and we have online trip planners, Google transit, and transit tracker via cell phone. We have a transit mall (currently being reconstructed) with a high degree of rider amenities. Bus service in our region can be a lot better, for the reasons you mentioned, but it could be a lot worse, too.
I stand by my statement that TriMet bus service is not “most utilitarian”.
If anyone wants to voluntarily pay for a “CRC Beautification Fund”, […]
I thought we had a democratic process and a system of elected representatives to make these kinds of decisions? If the government is going to build a massive CRC bridge (which I oppose, incidentally), the government can investigate ways to improve it’s appearance. I could just as easily turn your statement into “If anyone wants a new CRC bridge, there are a lot of banks who are looking for business and would love to start up a savings account for you.”
and the Portland Streetcar included numerous sidewalk and traffic signal improvements.
We’ve been over the capital funding of the streetcar before. By and large, those sidewalks and other capital improvements were paid for by the City of Portland, not TriMet.
I know that other communities are making investments in improved bus service. In Clackamas County, south of Milwaukie, there has been a major upgrade project for sidewalks along 99E going on, including adding new sidewalks, curbs and gutters where there previously were none. This project also includes bus pullouts for the 33/99X, with concrete bus pads. It looks like they’re putting down pads for new shelters as well, but work isn’t far enough along for me to tell if new shelters are going in or not.
Erik H:
Then I’m sure you’ll agree with removing 2/3rds of MAX station amenities (including ALL Transit Tracker signs), 2/3rds of Portland Streetcar shelters (including ALL NextBus signs), removing all sidewalk improvements that were constructed as part of the MAX and Portland Streetcar projects, remove the “plush” seats out of WES and the Wi-Fi service, remove about 80% of the Park and Ride capacity that is used only by MAX and WES, and make sure that only 50% of MAX, WES and Portland Streetcar vehicles have air conditioning? And then returning that excess money that was spent on a select few transit passengers to ALL TriMet passengers by reducing fares down to $1.00.
Could you please explain how removing amenities produces any money?
And while you’re at it, please explain how the Portland Streetcar amenities, including NextBus signs, has any impact at all on anything to do with TriMet?
And also explain how funding for WES, which has very little to do with TriMet, has any impact on bus amenities. Somehow, you’ve come to the conclusion that bus riders are getting the shaft, and that all the money provided by federal funds for WES or for light rail would be available for buses, if only TriMet’s administration really cared.
Much of what gets funded here is a direct result of the priorities of the FTA, not necessarily the priorities of local decision makers. The federal government supports rail projects and funding for them is at the top of the list. Buses? Not so much. It may be a terrible sorting of priorities, but you should take that up with the federal government.
Jeff F: Could you please explain how removing amenities produces any money?
Not really, but when someone wants to tell me that bus service in Portland is on par with rail service, imagine what kind of amenities have to be REMOVED from rail service to be “on par”. It’s not a small list of items.
In reality, those items shouldn’t be removed from the Streetcar/WES/MAX, they need to be added to the bus. Ten years ago.
And while you’re at it, please explain how the Portland Streetcar amenities, including NextBus signs, has any impact at all on anything to do with TriMet?
Who pays for the majority of the Portland Streetcar’s operating budget? TriMet.
And also explain how funding for WES, which has very little to do with TriMet, has any impact on bus amenities.
Very little to do with TriMet?!!!! I am literally rolling on the floor laughing my ass off hysterically at this statement.
Have you been to http://www.trimet.org in the last four months? There are TWO links about WES right on the home page right now. The WES vehicles are in TriMet colors. TriMet owns the cars, the track (north of Tigard, anyways), and all of the stations (except Wilsonville’s, which is owned by SMART). TriMet’s employees will fix the cars. The WES operations manager is a TriMet employee. The Project Manager overseeing WES construction is a TriMet employee. Should I go on?
that all the money provided by federal funds for WES or for light rail would be available for buses, if only TriMet’s administration really cared
Yes, actually, it would be. Because bus improvements are generally federally funded. Except that TriMet uses their federal dollars towards non-bus improvements, and then cries that busses are too expensive. Meanwhile, every other transit agency in America is getting federal dollars to replace busses, improve bus stops, build transit centers, so on and so forth.
It should also be mentioned that most transit bus purchases are matched 20% local/80% federal share. And in the case of King County, Washington – the federal government paid an even greater share for their existant fleet of over 200 hybrid-electric articulated busses; the local match was only 20% the cost of a non-hybrid bus, and the federal government paid 100% of the cost differential between the diesel and the hybrid propulsion.
Much of what gets funded here is a direct result of the priorities of the FTA
Which is an ironic statement because many transit insiders are claiming that the FTA is biased in favor of busses, and that the Small Starts program hasn’t taken off because of that bias.
not necessarily the priorities of local decision makers
So you’re saying that Washington D.C. is dictating what TriMet does, and what Metro plans, and what the City of Portland wants? Please, show me where the City/Metro/TriMet is claiming that rail is being forced down their throats by the FTA and they would rather have bus service. Puhleeze. Those decisions are made at Metro’s Regional Center and 17th & Center, not in Washington D.C.
The federal government supports rail projects and funding for them is at the top of the list. Buses? Not so much
Again, most transit insiders would strongly disagree with this statement.
It may be a terrible sorting of priorities, but you should take that up with the federal government.
And exactly who in the Federal Government should I take that up with, George W. Bush?
Jeff F-
When it comes to factual data around transit in Portland, Erik H is the king, or at least one of the kings.
(Bob R is pretty good too)
Al M
It is true that TriMet is handling operations for WES, but my point was (and is) that TriMet was a more or less reluctant partner in the project; it was driven entirely by the cities and Washington County.
Too many apples and oranges in Erik’s post, such as the inclusion of the NextBus signs on Streetcar. This was never a TriMet project, a TriMet decision, nor was the purchase of the system funded by TriMet dollars. TriMet provide operators and mechanics; the decisions about expansion of the system, purchase of cars, etc. are not made by TriMet.
There is a constant ongoing project to improve and update TriMet’s bus stops, but it is not something that can be done overnight. The improvements include amenities such as shelters and improved bus information, including posting of Stop ID numbers which allow customers easier access to TransitTracker. The level of those amenities is driven by ridership.
What on earth do bus shelters or a Wilsonville-Beaverton commuter line have to do with the economics of the CRC?
Here’s something on-topic: The Oregonian reports that ODOT, WSDOT, and Metro all ignored the potential for trip generation brought about by all the extra lanes in the bridge they’re trying to foist on us. They simply worked under the assumption that adding three extra lanes each way would not induce any growth above the “do nothing” baseline, and didn’t even take into account the potential to dump a whole lot of extra traffic into Portland.
This isn’t a new criticism, of course. Part of the problem with this project has been its very narrow focus on the immediate area around the bridge while ignoring the bigger picture.
Rex Burkholder argues that we can control those problems with tolls on the bridge and land-use regulations that limit sprawl… but we can do all that with the existing bridge, and save a few billion dollars in the process.
Metro, Washington County and ODOT are also doing the same ignoring when it comes to the 99W and I5 connector. They have a study area, which doesn’t include I5 north of Tualatin. So they dump all this traffic onto I5 from Sherwood and the west side and then don’t do anything to expand the capacity of I5.
If things continue down this road, with the proposed UGB study expansion south, and the connector, soon the valley will look exactly like California.
Great.
Time to move to Montana I guess.
John
“Time to move to Montana I guess.”
This is relevant to this discussion.
http://amargul.blogspot.com/2008/03/where-did-white-man-go-wrong.html
The Oregonian reports that ODOT, WSDOT, and Metro all ignored the potential for trip generation brought about by all the extra lanes in the bridge they’re trying to foist on us.
I would like to see the same exact standard applied for any MAX/Streetcar project.
After all, the introduction of MAX to the Westside didn’t decrease highway traffic – it actually increased traffic thanks to the massive amount of subsidized development occurring near the MAX line.
By the way, exactly how much did traffic increase on the Sunset Highway after the recent widening project was completed?
The Oregonian reports that ODOT, WSDOT, and Metro all ignored the potential for trip generation brought about by all the extra lanes…
They should have made sure to model for gas prices increasing further too. Right now according to Google Maps the only freeways moving under 25 mph are I-5 north through N Portland, and I-205 east from Tualatin to Oregon City.
High gas prices have definitely made my commute more consistent. Delta Park used to slow down southbound in the evening to below 40 mph fairly often just two or three months ago. Now it doesn’t seem like a bottleneck at all.
Commuter Rail from Vancouver to Portland would be cool. Albeit expensive.
Keep in mind, the freight system and Amtrak use the line between here and there and it is generally PACKED. When things where really hustling in 06′ there was basically negative capacity all day, i.e. it was a traffic jam on the line.
So if commuter rail is run, Oregon and Washington would have to get together to figure out how they where going to find the money for the following items – and no, there are no real ways around these items, if you can think of a way I’d be keen to know:
1. A new bridge for the added capacity across the columbia that wouldn’t have to bow to river right of way (i.e. it would need to be tall). I’d guess, about $800 Million to about $1 billion dollars easy.
2. New track along the currently existing ROW that would either need to triple, or at least offer sidings for passing and routing trains. $100-500 Million easy.
3. Every station stop would need additional tracks. Already the Vancouver station (that is in the rail yard and NOT downtown) is a total clog in the network, which is a problem since the river bridge is already a major clog, and the other host of problems the area has with traffic jamming the trains. $5-50 Million. Depending on the stations.
4. …and of course, the stations need built. $10-50 Million.
Overall we’re talking some SERIOUS investment in the current ROW between Vancouver and Portland. Very little of what exists would be usable for passengers without these investments.
I’m all up for it, but would hate to see taxes raised for it – the feds should bump some cash into area for it since they’ve been dumping on the highways for the past 60 years. Then I’d be stoked. It would also be nice to see some of that vulgar amount of cash I keep sending to those fed morons come back into the area in a wise investment. On top of all that, Amtrak and the freight trains would love the additional infrastructure, just like they do up near Tacoma and Seattle.