Metro and TriMet are embarking on a study of where High Capacity Transit should go in the next 30 years. From Metro:
Public Workshops: Metro begins process to identify next 30 years of high capacity transit projects – 8/12, 8/13 & 8/14/08 (top)
The Portland metropolitan region is home to a pioneering transit system. Over thirty years ago, the region decided to grow differently than other cities when elected leaders and citizens rallied against construction of freeways through developed neighborhoods and instead directed resources to a light rail project along I-84. Since then, the region has constructed 44 miles of light rail (the Blue, Red and Yellow lines). An additional 6.5 miles of light rail (Green line) and 14.7 miles of commuter rail (WES) are currently under construction. These lines connect the far reaches of the urban area from Hillsboro to Gresham and from north Portland to Clackamas, and to many neighborhoods in between.
Metro is launching a study to consider where the next 30 years of high capacity transit investments should go. High capacity transit is characterized by routes with fewer stops and some separation from regular traffic and could mean light rail, commuter rail, streetcar or buses on a dedicated right of way. Metro, the agency responsible for regional planning, will complete the Regional High Capacity Transit Plan along with TriMet, the Oregon Department of Transportation, and the 25 cities and three counties in the region. The plan will be closely coordinated with the City of Portland’s Streetcar System Plan.
In planning for future high capacity transit routes, we’re not starting from scratch but building on a legacy of planning work that is captured in the 2040 Growth Concept and the Regional Transportation Plan. The 2040 Growth Concept, adopted in 1995 after an extensive public engagement process, calls for high capacity transit service to regional centers like Oregon City and town centers such as Tualatin. The Regional Transportation Plan, updated every four years, identifies potential high capacity transit corridors that will serve as the starting point for this planning effort.
The High Capacity Transit System Plan will provide the region with a prioritized set of corridors based on planned land uses, community values and potential ridership. The plan will be adopted by the Metro Council in spring 2009 after review by community members, elected officials and technical staff from around the region.
Get involved!
Attend a workshop to learn more about the project and provide input about what areas should be served with high capacity transit in the future.
5-8 p.m. Tuesday, August 12
Walters Cultural Arts Center
527 East Main Street, Hillsboro5-8 p.m. Wednesday, August 13
Oregon City Pioneer Center
615 5th Street, Oregon City5-8 p.m. Thursday, August 14
East Portland Community Center
740 SE 106th Ave, PortlandTo learn more about the project or get on the mailing list, call 503 -797-1755, send an e-
mail to trans@oregonmetro.gov, or visit the project web site at
http://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=26680.
0 responses to “Whither MAX?”
I’m not sure I’d classify streetcars as high-capacity transit–perhaps if it does run mostly on a dedicated right-of-way, or at least has signal pre-emption.
Still, I’d vote for more suburb-to-suburb infrastructure. As suggested in a prior posting, a line of some sort connecting Tualatin (and possibly Sherwood) to Clackamas County, interchanging with WES in Tualatin, would be a good idea. Much of the ROW is already available (the humongous median of I-205 between Tualatin and the Willamette area). Such a line would cross the Willamette somewhere between West Linn and Oregon City (possibly on a new bridge, or on a new combined road/rail bridge which would replace the existing OR43 bridge), and connect to (or be an extension of) the green line. (LRT would be the most likely candidate, as there is no existing freight service to interact with).
Another possibility, if Damascus ever gets built out like folks think it will–would be a Sunnyside-ish/ line going from CTC out to Damascus, possibly turning north and intersecting with the existing blue line in Gresham.
I’m going out on a limb here by defending a stretch of freeway (and by going a bit off-topic), but I consider the median of I-205 between West Linn and Stafford Road to be one of the prettiest stretches of suburban freeway around. I would hope that any future transportation infrastructure which might be proposed, whether it be freeway widening, rail, HOV lanes, busways, etc., to follow I-205 could be constructed in such a way as to preserve the landscaping of that median.
And yes, I did just use the term “pretty” in relation to a freeway median. It’s a relative term in this case. :-)
Maybe “less ugly than the norm” is the way to describe it? :)
I do know what you mean WRT I-205. on the other hand, there are far worse things that could go in that median than light rail.
If I was looking for a Tualatin-to-Clackamas County route, I’d put a WES line on the freight tracks from Milwaukie to Tigard.
I-205 from Tualatin to Oregon City strikes me as a very low-ridership corridor for a transit line. If there’s any need for a connection there, an all-day limited or express bus probably makes more sense.
You’d be surprised how many people live in mid-outer Clackamas County (Oregon City, Sunnyside, Happy Valley, West Linn), and work in Washington County. Many of ’em use 205/I-5/217. While WES-ish commuter rail on the Tillamook Branch from Milwauakee might make sense, that’s most useful for those living close in; not so much for those living outside I-205. If the Orange Line were extended further south or east–either through Gladstone to OC, or along 224 to meet the Green Line at CTC, that might make more sense.
(An interesting question. Right now, the red line from the airport, the blue line from Gresham, and the complete-next-year green line from CTC, all meet at Gateway TC–and head downtown. If you want to go from Town Center to the airport, you’ll have to transfer at Gateway–at what point will a through I-205 line make sense?)
“at what point will a through I-205 line make sense?”
When MAX goes over the Glen Jackson Bridge. And yes, I know you’d have to take some lanes off the freeway to do that. And my answer to that is: Good.
…at what point will a through I-205 line make sense?
Once the tracks are extended along 205 to Oregon City it might be justified (connecting PDX to the only other metro-area Amtrak station), but definitely once it is extended to Tualatin.
The next major goal for HCT in Portland should be to connect all of the regional centers (i.e., suburban employment centers) in a similar fashion to how an extended I-205 route would connect the Gateway, Clackamas, and Oregon City regional centers. All of our regional centers should have the benefit of (at least) peak-hour high-capacity frequent service to the other regional centers. BRT is a good place to start measuring and even creating demand for these routes, and since we are talking 30+ years out, we could phase in BRT and see what routes deserve priority for upgrade to rail.
Here’s a fun idea.
Build a LRT line along the following corridor, along roughly the following route, think of this as an alternate westward extension of the line proposed above.
West from Tualatin, roughly along Tualatin Road.
Cross the river just west of King City, follow the powerlines (if you can do that) up to Beef Bend road, then round the southern and western flank of Bull Mountain, and north along Roy Rogers Road. Stick a TC there at the corner of Roy Rogers and Scholls Ferry, in that chunk of farmland that will become available when the reroute SW 175th to meet Roy Rogers.
Then west along Scholls Ferry until you get to Tile Flat Road, then along Tile Flat road until it intersects with Farmington. There head north, until you rendezvous with River Road, north into Hillsboro. Follow River Road and TV Highway into downtown, and intersect with the blue line.
Like the idea? :) It’s the often-proposed Westside Bypass, taking a similar alignment, but as an LRT line rather than a freeway. Think 1000 Friends would like it? A rail line would chew up far less real estate than a 4-6 lane freeway, and one could discourage rural sprawl simply by not building any stops where there isn’t a population base.
Of course, this idea is only halfway serious–building a LRT line so far outside the UGB would have all sorts of legal issues. And I suspect that there isn’t yet a critical mass of tualatin-to-hillsboro commuters who couldn’t take WES to Beaverton and MAX to Hillsboro. Even a WES extension to Hillsboro or Forest Grove, along the existing P&W tracks, would make more sense.
But then again, the freeway doesn’t make much more sense either.
What sorta BRT?
I-205 is frequently jammed with rush-hour traffic; unless you are talking about a dedicated bus lane, I bet that your BRT won’t be very R… express busses aren’t very useful when they find themselves in bumper-to-bumper crawls.
Plus, we already have trains along the freeway from CTC to the airport; having to tranfer to a bus at some point will discourage commuters.
“And yes, I know you’d have to take some lanes off the freeway to do that. And my answer to that is: Good.”
My answer: that is never, ever, EVER going to happen. Ever.
This dip in driving rates is going to prove short-lived by history’s standards. Our way of life and our entire society depends on us adapting. And we will. Cars will get smaller and more fuel efficient, and then they will transition away from petroleum.
Even if only the first 2 happen, $20/gallon gas doesn’t much matter when you only buy 2 gallons a week. There is no need to continue building SUVs, just like there is no reason to think their proliferation in the 1990s portends the end of the car culture. We’re living peak oil right now, and none of the doomsday scenarios described by the zealots have even come close to fruition. Barely a blip, really.
I support investing in transit as much as anyone, but I also try to be realistic about the role it has to play in our society.
Perhaps what is needed is better *freight* infrastructure. That may be off-topic for this blog.
One of the interesting lessons of US history is how the rails and the roads have been funded. Roadways have long been considered a public good–built and maintained by government, and paid for–at least partially–through tax dollars. Of course, much road funding comes from road users–through fuel taxes, weight-mile taxes, license and registration fees, tolls, etc; another chunk comes out of developers. But the US has a road network that has long been the envy of the world; though parts of it are starting to fall apart due to neglect. (A topic for a thread in itself).
Rail, on the other hand, has long been the focus of private enterprise. Perhaps this is due to rail’s earlier emergence–at a time when government involvement in such a project would have been scandalous–but anyways, the rails (the freight variety) were largely built, maintained, and owned by private enterprise.
And the result has been nothing short of a century-and-a-half disaster.
Despite being handed gazillions of acres of free real estate along which to construct rail lines, many railroads failed to survive–often due to rampant speculation. Those that did often became abusive monopolies (acting far worse than Wal-Mart or Microsoft today).
Is it any surprise that as soon as truck transportation became practical–with a combination of cheap oil and readily available gasoline distribution infrastructure, and a well-developed long-haul road network, that the railroads were smacked upside the head? Despite the higher labor and fuel costs associated with trucking (it takes a fleet of trucks and truck drivers to haul the same amount of freight that a train can haul with a two-man crew; and those truck will burn far more petroleum than a modern diesel-electric locomotive), trucking soon came to dominate US freight movement–including long-haul shipment of many sorts of goods where time isn’t of the essence.
Part of that is poor management of the railways. Part of that is incomplete infrastructure. And part of that is the fact that the railways are responsible for keeping their tracks in shape, whereas we the people–or at least the motoring public–keep the roads in useful condition.
As an example–the Port of Tillamook Railway saw much track damage during last winter’s storms; and may not re-open anytime soon. The POTR certainly has no funds to perform the millions of dollars of repairs needed. But if Highway Six were to have been washed out instead–as it frequently is–ODOT would have crews repairing the roadway to bring it back in service as soon as possible–telling the folks in Tillamook and other parts of the central coast that the Wilson River route is unstable and they’ll just have to drive to Seaside instead–would be politically unacceptable.
What we need to focus on, perhaps, is rail infrastructure–including regarding it as public good, rather than a private enterprise. Transit planners often view rail as part of a closed ecosystem. Busses are more attractive than trains to transit planners with small budgets, as they re-use existing infrastructure, whereas putting in a rail line anywhere involves laying track. WES is an unusual venture–and a fine example of an exception–but don’t expect to see transit on the UP or BN mainlines anytime soon (other than Amtrak, which the railroads are legally required to tolerate).
Old Plans are the Best Plans – I haven’t really looked too hard at this due to uh… well, no one likes the guy around here. But if we fast forward this plan into the 21st-and-a-half Century, perhaps it could be useful.
And where is Metro’s involvement in providing bus service to those areas which will be underserved by this High Capacity Transit Plan?
Where is Metro’s involvement in providing quality transit service to build support for High Capacity Transit in the future?
Where is Metro’s involvement to build less-than-high-capacity transit, which could include vanpools, feeder/shuttle/community bus routes, and cross-town bus routes?
Just more proof that if you’re a bus rider, you’re a second class citizen in Metro’s world.
EngineerScotty wrote: Damascus ever gets built out like folks think it will
You mean, Metro, inducing sprawl?!!!!
Build a LRT line along the following corridor, along roughly the following route, think of this as an alternate westward extension of the line proposed above.
So, more induced sprawl where there is currently farmland; plus the route would only serve 2% of the total trips taken at the same expense as a highway.
That makes…no…sense. If we can’t “build our way out of congestion”, why are we planning to BUILD MAX lines to build us out of Congestion? I thought the whole idea was urban, dense construction – not more far-flung developments that claim to be “transit oriented” but are still predominately auto-based like Orenco Station.
If Metro is so gung-ho on Damascus, then they have no right to challenge the CRC project to anything less than 12 lanes. Sprawl is sprawl and I don’t give a damn if it’s in Battle Ground or Molalla – it’s still sprawl.
Add replacing the Wilsonville to Beaverton WES line with the MAX Red Lin line to the list. WES is not a long term solution. That corridor need 15 minute service 7 days a week.
I think it is time to face it —
People are too damn greedy and self-interested to build anything great in this country.
At one point in our history, you could pay 5,000 workers peanuts every day and cope with a few of them dying every so often (ok, every day) when building transit systems. As long as they were Chinese, Irish, or maybe even Black, this was OK. Also, we have things like unions and rules and right-of-way and other crap in the grounds, and minimum wage too. All these things prevent building anything as cool as the NYC Subway nowadays.
I will say, if Sam Adams can figure out a way to get like 50% of everyone out of their car, they’ll have plenty of extra money to pay higher taxes (what is the number for car cost/year? 8,000, payments+insurance+gas?). If you factor in the cost of less people driving and dying in accidents, our precious little children getting hit, and so forth, there ought to be plenty of money for enough grade-separated lines to make New York City look like Toledo, Washington.
Pretty much, if we don’t do this, it’s because we are a country of gigantic cowards.
Ah, Mr. Moses.
The guy who once designed an expressway with intentionally-low overpasses to keep the city busses (and the riffraff thereon) from travelling to the upscale neighborhoods at the far end of the route.
Of course, his plan was for a city of Portland much smaller than today–one in which Beaverton was still a cow town. (Some say it still is).
Anyway, just because Metro is engaged in a public project for long-term, large-distance transit development (a question that by necessity involves the entire community, and multiple layers of government), doesn’t mean that local bus service is being ignored. Tri-Met can do local route planning without Metro involvement; if you have suggestions on how Tri-Met can improve local service, we’re all ears.
What routes would you add, for instance, that you think are being underserved?
As of yet, nobody is planning to build a MAX line to Damascus–that’s my suggestion here, based on the prospect of Damascus growing due to UGB expansion. Unless a) Damascus does indeed start to grow, and b) it’s clear that this trend will continue, Damascus-oriented projects such as a hypothetical Sunnyside MAX line, or busway–or the Sunrise Corridor, for that matter–probably should not begin. (My prediction is that the SC doesn’t get built, not for a long time. The notion of a freeway out to Rock Creek Junction strikes me as DOA; any EIS for doing that should also consider improvements to 212 out to Sandy–and the resulting deluge of traffic from Mount Hood commuters saying “thank God I don’t have to slog through Gresham anymore”, and the resulting pressure on I-205 and OR224/99E between Clackamas and Portland. A similar argument helped kill the West Eugene Parkway, a far less ambitious but arguably more necessary highway project).
And no, the plan is not to force everyone but wealthy yuppie liberals to live in row-houses or apartments. :)
Complainer–you may be on to something. :)
In places where there aren’t environmental restrictions, EIS red tape, minimum wage laws, OHSA, etc., and if you get hurt on the job you no longer have a job; and condemning (or outright stealing) land from the poor squatters who live their previously is a trivial procedure, and labor unions don’t exist, except possibly to keep the workers in line, and any issues that do crop up can be quickly resolved with a small bribe to the right public official–it is quite easy to expand infrastructure. Lots of countries are doing it as we speak.
That doesn’t mean that we should want to live in such a place, though. Unless you’re certain that you’ll be one of the pavecar drivers, and not one of the pit slaves. (Anybody else remember alt.pave-the-earth?)
I don’t know if I ever told anyone here about my dream where I lived in a much different Portland where the old streetcar network was maintained, in fact a streetcar ran just outside my window on 39th Ave., and a lot of the Robert Moses stuff existed, but as decent capacity elevated trains. Enough on that, that’s probably cuckoo enough for one night.
I-205 from Tualatin to Oregon City strikes me as a very low-ridership corridor for a transit line. If there’s any need for a connection there, an all-day limited or express bus probably makes more sense.
SMART used to run a very limited schedule Route 202 between Wilsonville and Oregon City, via. Meridian Park Hospital and Borland Rd. I know it was canceled due to low ridership, and believe it was 2001 or so. Also, 154-Willamette which is in the eastern half of the corridor, is one of TriMet’s lowest-performing routes. I’m not against service restarting in the corridor, however, at the TriMet TIP meeting in May I informally suggested having 154 run out to at least Tualatin (if not Sherwood) to connect with WES, 76 and 96. The entire area out there appears to be within the TriMet service area. The issues I can see with that, however is it would involve either spreading out the headways or additional operating funds. And, even with either of those, would service be enough to be usable by those that need to use it and enough for choice riders to want to use it?
As of yet, nobody is planning to build a MAX line to Damascus
Something important to remember is most of Damascus isn’t within any transit district boundary. One of my grand amateur thoughts/schemes involves that Sherwood/Tualatin to Oregon City route continuing through Damascus to Boring as route 212-Sherwood/Boring. Doubt that would be feasable however. TriMet’s TIP does include Frequent Service out Sunnyside Rd. to the junction with 212 and Foster Rd., as well as an HCT corridor extending down Foster Rd. all the way to said junction.
And yes, I did just use the term “pretty” in relation to a freeway median.
I like that portion of 205 myself, along with some of the stretches in Clark Co. Haven’t really seen either portion in years, since it involves driving through it.
When MAX goes over the Glen Jackson Bridge. And yes, I know you’d have to take some lanes off the freeway to do that. And my answer to that is: Good
According to this guy the Glenn Jackson Bridge was designed to carry light rail:
“But planning for the North Interstate route bothers me. As I look at recent maps showing densities and growth in Clark County I see that it happened right where we said it would, yet the prevailing decisions seem to be to try to cross the river along or near the I-5 corridor. This alignment makes no sense to me, and, in the process, could polarize north Portland instead of help heal it. I wonder if today’s planners know that the Glenn Jackson Bridge was designed to contain a light rail line?”
Is he talking about running it in the center where the ped path is, or lane removal, or building on the outside of the lanes?
When MAX goes over the Glen Jackson Bridge. And yes, I know you’d have to take some lanes off the freeway to do that. And my answer to that is: Good
According to this guy the Glenn Jackson Bridge was designed to carry light rail:
“But planning for the North Interstate route bothers me. As I look at recent maps showing densities and growth in Clark County I see that it happened right where we said it would, yet the prevailing decisions seem to be to try to cross the river along or near the I-5 corridor. This alignment makes no sense to me, and, in the process, could polarize north Portland instead of help heal it. I wonder if today’s planners know that the Glenn Jackson Bridge was designed to contain a light rail line?”
Is he talking about running it in the center where the ped path is, or lane removal, or building on the outside of the lanes?
This Columbian article from June, 2008 addresses whether or not the Glenn Jackson bridge can carry light rail — it looks problematic at best:
Uh,
I’ll get back to you on this one!
Al M
It seems like a light rail only bridge could be done fairly cheaply if it was only for rail and nothing else. There already are pedestrian and bike facilities, and a lift span might even work for off peak use to avoid needing to go too high.
Fairly cheaply of course meaning relative to $1.4b for the CRC’s LRT bridge.
EngineerScotty wrote: Anyway, just because Metro is engaged in a public project for long-term, large-distance transit development (a question that by necessity involves the entire community, and multiple layers of government), doesn’t mean that local bus service is being ignored. Tri-Met can do local route planning without Metro involvement; if you have suggestions on how Tri-Met can improve local service, we’re all ears.
Metro is the so-called “regional transportation planning agency” or whatever the legalese name is for it. Metro has no problem planning for streets, for bridges, for sidewalks, for bikeways, for trails, for light rail lines, for streetcar lines…do you see what is missing?
Yet it is Metro’s cronies that often call for a need for a “balanced transportation network” yet they openly neglect the one mode of mass transit used by two-thirds of Portland’s transit ridership.
If Metro wants “balance”, than bus service MUST be included in EVERY transportation program, not as an after-thought but as an integral part of the plan.
If TriMet can start bus service without Metro’s involvement, than TriMet can start light rail without Metro’s involvement. The inverse – Metro doesn’t need to plan for light rail (or any other mode of transportation) because Metro is not a transportation provider. Metro does not own one inch of transportation facilities. The closest they come to providing transit is managing the area’s vanpool system, a system that is pathetic compared to Seattle.
As for areas that are underserved by bus service… Forest Grove (the only bus route serves Highway 8 – no service to the areas west/north of downtown); Cornelius (no service except for Highway 8), Hillsboro – north of downtown, along Main Street east of downtown, along Cornelius Pass Road. Cedar Mill. Beaverton – Murrayhill, Aloha except for main streets. Tigard – everything between 99W and Scholls Ferry, and 99W to Hall Boulevard. Sherwood – entire city. Tualatin – everything except for the I-5 corridor.
And that’s just the western part of Portland.
Metro has no problem planning for streets, for bridges, for sidewalks, for bikeways, for trails, for light rail lines, for streetcar lines…do you see what is missing? […] If Metro wants “balance”, than bus service MUST be included in EVERY transportation program, not as an after-thought but as an integral part of the plan.
From Metro’s original announcement, excerpted at the very top of this thread:
(emphasis added)
Metro has no problem planning for streets, for bridges, for sidewalks, for bikeways, for trails, for light rail lines, for streetcar lines…do you see what is missing?
Let’s see … streets, bridges, sidewalks, bikeways, trails, light rail tracks and streetcar tracks … what kind of transportation infrastructure is missing here…?
Canals! They failed to plan for canals!
That’s outrageous! How dare Metro overlook those among us who might want to travel by gondola!
If TriMet can start bus service without Metro’s involvement, than TriMet can start light rail without Metro’s involvement. The inverse – Metro doesn’t need to plan for light rail (or any other mode of transportation) because Metro is not a transportation provider.
News flash: BUSES RUN ON ROADS!!! When Metro plans streets and bridges, THEY ARE PLANNING FOR BUSES. Take a look at the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan prepared by, yes, METRO: page 3-39 has a nice map on it with planned corridors for rapid bus, frequent bus, regional bus, radial community bus service, inter-city bus, and major bus stops.
Buses aren’t missing from Metro’s planning. You just chose not to mention them. That’s understandable; it’s pretty hard to make the case that Metro ignores buses in their planning when, in the real world, they’re treating bus lines as integral components in their regional transportation plan.
…a system that is pathetic compared to Seattle.
Erik, I agree with much of what you say, but you’re comparing apples and tacos. Seattle Metro is twice the size of Portland Metro, and although the cities are comparable in size/population your criticism of Portland’s buses is of the suburban areas.
Tualatin/Sherwood definitely need better service, as far as the areas of them I’m familiar with, but the Seattle Metro region’s suburbs have over twice the population of Portland Metro’s suburbs. Comparing transit between a bi-state area of 2m people and a single state metro of 4m, it’s not really fair.
(I only bring up bi-stateism due to the tax factors involved, not because I’m a biased-bi-stateist.)
“Metro has no problem planning for streets, for bridges, for sidewalks, for bikeways, for trails, for light rail lines, for streetcar lines…do you see what is missing?”
Water taxis. The central city plan of 1988 mentions them, yet they haven’t showed up yet, probably because Metro and their “anti-water” bias just doesn’t want them around.
The continued reference to Seattle as being better than Portland as far as transit service goes, got me to thinking. So I went over to the National Transit Database (http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram)
to see what it had to say. So here it is as of 2006:
Population and Census ranking of city size:
Portland–1,253,502 rank 24
Seattle(King,Snohomish,& Pierce)– 3,204,650 rank 14
Sound Transit lists a different pop. of 2,670,000
Annual Unlinked Trips:
Portland–101,575,197
King Co–106,273,556
Snohomish–9,678,043
Pierce–13,630,165
Sound–12,397,667
Seattle(King,Snohomish,Pierce, & Sound Transit)–118,979,431
Annual Operating Expenses:
Portland–$328,615,017
King Co.–$478,109,237
Snohomish–$86,793,009
Pierce–$87,369,948
Sound–$120,398,813
Seattle(King,Snohomish,Pierce, & Sound Transit)–$772,671,007
As you can all see, the Seattle region out spent Portland by well over 2:1 for a less than 18% increase in ridership. AND Seattle has a higher base population.
As for the OP I will generally agree that MAX on the SW corridor is needed the most.
SmoothOp: As for the OP I will generally agree that MAX on the SW corridor is needed the most.
Exactly. I don’t disagree with the idea that Portland can improve, but it’s apples and tacos.
“Annual Unlinked Trips:”
Hmmmmmmmmmm……….?
I’ll get back to you on this!
Here’s a question for you:
Say PDX/Tri-Met were to experiment with some sort of BRT/”Quality Bus” service. Not full-fledged, Brazil style busways–but something like EmX down in the Eugene/Springfield area. Take a well-known interurban arterial corridor (a wide one), add a dedicated bus lane or two, nice(r) bus stops in the mediam (more than a sign and a shelter), signal pre-emption down the route, etc. Not fully grade separated, but a semi-protected ROW.
Since the bus does have an exclusive ROW, electrification is an option, but not necessary for this gedanken.
Would such things be useful? (In some places yes; other places are ready for higher-capacity rail). And where would you put one?
add a dedicated bus lane or two,
If we’re talking a major arterial route in the Portland metro area, then something more than a single EmX-style lane would be required. (Or a lane which is dedicated to the peak travel direction.)
The EmX system of running buses in both directions down a single lane (and using stations to pass), from what I’ve read, limits headways to about 10 minutes each direction, with little room for error in a schedule (if a bus is late, it’s next run is dropped completely). A medium to high capacity route in Portland could easily require more frequent headways at peak times.
So start with two lanes, or one unidirectional lane which reverses in the middle of the day.
Al,
Annual Unlinked Trips are the total number of boardings for a transit agency in a one year period.
Dave wrote: Erik, I agree with much of what you say, but you’re comparing apples and tacos. Seattle Metro is twice the size of Portland Metro, and although the cities are comparable in size/population your criticism of Portland’s buses is of the suburban areas.
In that case, Portland (a.k.a. Metro, TriMet, etc.) need to stop the B.S. about how great we are in comparison to other cities.
If Portland is great, we need to be better, even if our comparison is larger cities. We need to be more transit friendly than Los Angeles, Seattle, New York, etc. We need to be more pedestrian friendly than other cities. We need to be better.
Either we are, or we aren’t. And if we aren’t, stop pretending like we are. Portland keeps bragging about how great our light rail system is – yet it comes at a great expense by those who aren’t served by it. Portland claims it is the “sustainable capital” of the region; yet our bus service is anything bus. Sam Adams demands that we build an artistic bridge across the Columbia River, yet our busses look like bricks (and pollute like brick factories) and our bus stops are hardly welcoming to users. If we are going to demand these changes (and invest) in other modes, why is our bus service left to rot away – why is Metro neglecting bus service in its transit programs? Metro ought to put bus service first and foremost for improvements. Sam Adams ought to be putting a plan to spend millions of city dollars to improve city bus stops so that they encourage ridership and pedestrian activities in and around bus stops.
Seattle is doing it.
Are we better than Seattle? Should we be better than Seattle? If not, let’s at least admit that we are second to Seattle in the Pacific Northwest, and admit that we are going to have a second-rate transportation system – not a first-rate one.
In that case, Portland (a.k.a. Metro, TriMet, etc.) need to stop the B.S. about how great we are in comparison to other cities.
***Why should they stop? The fact is that Portland DOES have one of the best transit systems in the country. It is one of the most used systems as well. Portland is now 8th in the nation for per capita transit use.
If Portland is great, we need to be better, even if our comparison is larger cities. We need to be more transit friendly than Los Angeles, Seattle, New York, etc.
***Simply put Portland is more transit friendly than LA, Seattle, and NYC. This is in part due to PDX’s compact size.
We need to be more pedestrian friendly than other cities. We need to be better.
***This is true of just about everything–you can always “do better”.
Either we are, or we aren’t. And if we aren’t, stop pretending like we are.
***Good thing that we are!!
Portland keeps bragging about how great our light rail system is – yet it comes at a great expense by those who aren’t served by it.
***Hence the plans for expansion i.e. completing the system.
Portland claims it is the “sustainable capital” of the region; yet our bus service is anything bus. Sam Adams demands that we build an artistic bridge across the Columbia River, yet our busses look like bricks (and pollute like brick factories)
***Trimet has one of the best maintenance teams out there. Plus it also has one of the highest MPG ratings for a transit agency. Finally, the worst polluting busses-the 1400’s-are gone as of the end of the year and will be replaced by brand new and very clean New Flyers.
and our bus stops are hardly welcoming to users.
***Huh? They as good or better than any other US transit agency.
If we are going to demand these changes (and invest) in other modes, why is our bus service left to rot away – why is Metro neglecting bus service in its transit programs? Metro ought to put bus service first and foremost for improvements.
***Isn’t Metro’s job PLANNING? If anyone is neglecting bus service it would be Trimet. I, of course, would just refer you to the answer up above that states Portland is 8th in the nation. Also there is 200 new busses in the next 5 years–a fact that you continue to ignore.
Sam Adams ought to be putting a plan to spend millions of city dollars to improve city bus stops so that they encourage ridership and pedestrian activities in and around bus stops.
***And what programs would you like to see cut to pay for this? Also consider that Sam Adams DID try to put a road improvement and transit proposal on the ballot and it had to be withdrawn due to lack of support.
Seattle is doing it.
*** This is a useless statement. King Co. has direct control of Metro and it’s budget. And, as I have already noted earlier,they outspend Portland 2.5+ to 1 and have very little to show for it. Not at all a good example of fiscal responsibility–in my opinion.
Are we better than Seattle?
***In terms of transit service? YES we are!! We whup thar arses darn GOOD!!!
Should we be better than Seattle? If not, let’s at least admit that we are second to Seattle in the Pacific Northwest, and admit that we are going to have a second-rate transportation system – not a first-rate one.
***I, personally, will NOT admit any such thing! And, furthermore, I believe that any person that would espouse such nonsensical drivel should quit whatever it is that they are doing and check themselves into rehab–at ONCE.
“***Simply put Portland is more transit friendly than LA, Seattle, and NYC. This is in part due to PDX’s compact size.”
NYC definitely beats the socks off of us, with an excess of 50%+ of transit usage.
But I digress, everything else you said is spot on. Erik, albeit some good points, is generally off base and similar to Bastiat without the significant points or facts. But none the less, he’s still a good read in the comments. :)
As for our system, our buses, like Erik mentioned, definitely suck compared to Seattle’s (and Tacoma’s for that matter).
They have hybrids, which burn super clean and tons of trolley buses, which don’t spew puky diesal everywhere downtown, ride MUCH smoother with their cushioned seats, and generally are better in every “ridability” standard.
However, their (Seattle’s/Metro’s) on time performance sucks, their tracking is non-existent (we have transit tracker, do they?), their bus stops are horrid – and much rarer than ours, the shedules are crap, the website they have is a joke – find a map on it – they break about EVERY single freaking usability standard, …and generally in every way (except the above stated “ride quality” & “Environmental Cleanliness”) Seattle’s Metro System is a joke compared to ours.
…now if we want to talk about Sound Transit, that brings up a whole different debate too.
Their buses are the same situation as the comment above. However their trains (Sounder Commuter Rail) is vastly superior in ride quality to anything TriMet has and connects a vastly larger area… albeit because of VASTLY SUPERIOR city design and layout (not particularly planning) Portland doesn’t need to really have a huge vastly expensive commuter rail system like that. But it really does have a nice ride, free wireless, and all that cool stuff. Our WES should provide just as good, if not an outright better ride.
…the worst polluting busses-the 1400’s-are gone as of the end of the year…
(add cheers and applause here)
Am I the only person that posts on this website to ride one of C-TRAN’s new hybrid buses? (OK, I know they’re not TriMet, and they’re technically in Washington State, but it’s still part of the metro area.) Better than anything I’ve seen or been on in Seattle, that’s for sure.
The Smooth Operator wrote: Why should they stop? The fact is that Portland DOES have one of the best transit systems in the country. It is one of the most used systems as well. Portland is now 8th in the nation for per capita transit use.
OK, so unreliable bus service, old busses that lack modern amenities, and a general lack of bus stop amenities is “one of the best transit systems in the country”? Wow.
Simply put Portland is more transit friendly than LA, Seattle, and NYC. This is in part due to PDX’s compact size.
Compact? How is Portland compact? Have you measured the distance between Forest Grove and Troutdale? Between Wilsonville and Ridgefield? It might be smaller but it isn’t compact.
Trimet has one of the best maintenance teams out there. Plus it also has one of the highest MPG ratings for a transit agency. Finally, the worst polluting busses-the 1400’s-are gone as of the end of the year and will be replaced by brand new and very clean New Flyers.
Thank you, Fred Hansen. Can you back up any of your statements? I’ve asked TriMet and they can’t verify a single statement of this. In fact other transit agencies (C-Tran, in particular) have publicly annouced MPG ratings of their fleets that are well over TriMet’s. And the statement about replacing the 1400s with new busses – TriMet doesn’t have any new busses on delivery for this year, and I’ve heard from TriMet sources that the 1400s might be kept longer while 1700s (which are about two years newer) will be retired first.
Huh? They as good or better than any other US transit agency.
Clearly you don’t ride the bus. I’ll see you at a typical TriMet bus stop in the middle of February.
Isn’t Metro’s job PLANNING? If anyone is neglecting bus service it would be Trimet. I, of course, would just refer you to the answer up above that states Portland is 8th in the nation. Also there is 200 new busses in the next 5 years–a fact that you continue to ignore.
And isn’t Metro’s job PLANNING for bus service as much as light rail service?
I am not ignoring the fact that TriMet is ordering 200 new busses for delivery in five years.
What you are neglecting is that TriMet should have had those 200 busses delivered within the last three years.
And what programs would you like to see cut to pay for this? Also consider that Sam Adams DID try to put a road improvement and transit proposal on the ballot and it had to be withdrawn due to lack of support.
The tram, the streetcar, the so-called arts program, the subsidy to the Pearl District and SoWa, the subsidy of Portland Public Schools (a separate government agency).
This is a useless statement. King Co. has direct control of Metro and it’s budget. And, as I have already noted earlier,they outspend Portland 2.5+ to 1 and have very little to show for it. Not at all a good example of fiscal responsibility–in my opinion.
How is that a useless statement? What you fail to mention is that Seattle’s percentage of trips taken by transit compared to Portland is the same; that Seattle’s ridership (predominately a bus-only system) has grown in double-digit rates each year for the last three years consistently – at the same time TriMet’s bus ridership DROPPED two of those three years, and TriMet is claiming higher ridership this year which I personally cannot vouch for despite my use of the bus system a minimum of two boarding rides per weekday.
I, personally, will NOT admit any such thing! And, furthermore, I believe that any person that would espouse such nonsensical drivel should quit whatever it is that they are doing and check themselves into rehab–at ONCE.
This sounds like a personally directed statement and underscores your lack of understanding of the bus system here in Portland. Clearly, you don’t ride the bus.
This sounds like a personally directed statement and underscores your lack of understanding of the bus system here in Portland. Clearly you don’t ride the bus.
IIRC, the Smooth Operator actually drives a bus, which means he probably knows quite a bit about the system. And how funny is it that Erik is whining about “personally directed statements” while making one of his own.
Erik, since you are constantly bellyaching about how bad Tri-Met bus stops are, please identify which transit agencies in America have better, more “welcoming” bus stops than Tri-Met.
Douglas K. wrote: Erik, since you are constantly bellyaching about how bad Tri-Met bus stops are, please identify which transit agencies in America have better, more “welcoming” bus stops than Tri-Met.
Here’s examples of well-invested bus stops:
http://www.walkinginfo.org/transit/images/midblockbehind.9.2.jpg
http://ti.org/KCbrtstop.jpg
http://www.toronto.ca/auda/2003/images/cot_transit_shelter_lg.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/167/440723001_ee80e71576.jpg?v=0
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/167/440722995_f1b33eeeb1.jpg?v=0
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_ZVazZrIq0Fs/RJl-fsTlABI/AAAAAAAAAB8/PPTUpFUSd5c/2209-47-2128.jpg
http://www.trainweb.com/cgi-bin/photos/showpic1.cgi?/fotosort/stations/ful/octa/mvc-067s.jpg
http://www.trainweb.com/cgi-bin/photos/showpic1.cgi?/fotosort/stations/ful/octa/mvc-068s.jpg
http://www.geekologie.com/2007/08/10/colorchanging%20bus%20stop.jpg
http://www.busway.co.nz/images/Constellation-Bus-Station_2.jpg
http://www.northwestcement.org/photos/van/fishertransit3.jpg
http://www.soundtransit.org/Images/projects/TDS_bus_night1105.jpg
http://bp2.blogger.com/_Wljr_M1tl-s/RqpefWgpvuI/AAAAAAAAAac/MlHlsDgyuww/s1600-h/bus_stop02.jpg
http://www.itravelnet.com/photos/me/uae/dubai/jumeirah/dubai-air-conditioned-bus-stop-seats.jpg
http://www.itravelnet.com/photos/me/uae/dubai/jumeirah/dubai-air-conditioned-bus-stop.jpg
http://www.agilitynut.com/p/taiwan.jpg
http://www.inklingmagazine.com/images/article-images/bus_stop_thumb.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1032/1330702900_26e1b89014.jpg
http://www.lsadesigninc.com/images/uts1.jpg
http://www.ltd.org/admin/dynpage/_i3/images/gatewaystation/stationmock2.jpg
http://www.sundialenergy.com/se_css_images/bus_shelter/bus_shelter_illust_650.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/197/498800956_5e9bb097b1_o.jpg
http://www.buffalo.edu/news/hires/bus_shelter.jpg
http://www.bevkperovic.com/pictures/01-prototype_bus_shelter.jpg
http://www.merseytravel.gov.uk/articleimages/Enclosed-bus-shelter.jpg
http://www.ci.westminster.ca.us/images/bus%20shelter%20070.jpg
http://www.rutland.gov.uk/ppimageupload/image20844.GIF
http://www.adverbox.com/admin/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/brazilian_bus_shelter.jpg
http://www.design21sdn.com/attachments/0000/0926/_bus_shelter1_471x231_.jpg
http://www.tc.gc.ca/Programs/Environment/UTSP/images/ShowcaseImages/Halifax/lowrez/17.JPG
http://www.laconiv.com/2006/pix/bus-shelter_600x450.jpg
http://www.oxford-chiltern-bus-page.co.uk/upload%20171206/Conwy%20Bus%20Shelter%20141206%20mc.jpg
http://www.core77.com/news/bullitt_images/10.04_fiori_1.jpg
http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/uploads/New%20Haven%20Bus%20Shelter.jpg
http://coolboom.net/en/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/bus-shelter1.jpg
http://adsoftheworld.com/files/images/dimmer.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/BrightonSeafront-BusShelter-01.JPG/800px-BrightonSeafront-BusShelter-01.JPG
http://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/upload/public/docimages/Normal/j/l/r/PhotoBBusShelter600x450.gif
http://www.urbanartmanagement.com/images/portfolio/NV-bus-shelter/bus-shelter1.jpg
http://keetsa.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/bus_shelter_mn1.jpg
Bob, I see yet another post with a LOT of links to well invested upon (and some artsy) bus stops has gone into the Portland Transport circular bin.