Buses to return to transit mall; Public input on routes sought.


As mentioned in the open thread, TriMet has now released it’s preliminary plans for returning buses to the Transit Mall. A series of public meetings will be held to gather input from riders. For full details, visit:

http://www.trimet.org/meetings/portlandmall/index.htm

A compilation of the comments from the open thread follows the break:

September 20, 2008 12:36 PM
The Smooth Operator Says:

The most recent edition of Trimet’s employee newsletter had the following announcement. I thought that it would be of interest to everyone here.

Possible May 2009
bus service changes

You may see Customer Service staff
handing out notices on your bus
this month. They’re alerting riders
to meetings about possible changes
to downtown bus service after the
Portland Mall reopens in May 2009.
This is one step in TriMet’s multi-
phase process to discuss and receive
comments on this topic. Additional
meetings will be held after a draft
plan is developed.
The meetings will take place at these
Portland locations:

9/30, 6-8 p.m.: Multnomah County
Building, 501 SE Hawthorne Blvd.

10/8, 10:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m.: Portland
State, 1825 SW Broadway, Room 296

10/8, 6-8 p.m.: Grant Park Baptist
Church, 2728 NE 34th Ave.

10/9, 5:30-7:30 p.m.: Boys and Girls
Club, 5250 NE Martin Luther King Jr.

Highlights of the changes under
consideration include:

Line 6 would no longer run in
downtown Portland, but would
extend to downtown Milwaukie
along the existing Line 70 route.

Line 10-NE 33rd Ave. would run
between NE Portland and Lloyd
Center with increased frequency.

Line 10-NE Harold would become a
cross-Mall route.

Line 14 would either return to the
Mall or become a cross-Mall route.

Lines 17, 35, 36 and 54/56 would use
Harrison both ways instead of Clay
and Market.

Other ways to submit comments:
Email comments@trimet.org or
phone 503-962-5806.

——————————————————————————–

September 20, 2008 7:44 PM
Jason Barbour Says:

Big thank you, Smooth Operator!

The meeting times/locations are nowhere to be found on the TriMet website (at least as far as I know), even though I first heard of them at the Portland Mall Citizens Advisory Committee meeting earlier this month. The only other place I’ve seen any notice of these at all is a printed notice at some downtown bus stops, but they only list two of the meetings (and different ones on each notice/route).

I even asked at Pioneer Square customer service on Sept. 16th (the first day I saw one of the notices)… they hadn’t heard anything about it!

——————————————————————————–

September 20, 2008 11:14 PM
Bob R. Says:

There was a preliminary presentation on this given to the last Streetcar CAC meeting as well… I don’t know when they plan to roll out their main public outreach process on this.

——————————————————————————–

September 21, 2008 11:19 AM
The Smooth Operator Says:

When I posted this earlier I didn’t have time for any comments, so I will now

Line 6 would no longer run in
downtown Portland, but would
extend to downtown Milwaukie
along the existing Line 70 route.

This makes me wonder if they plan on combining the two routes…

Line 10-NE 33rd Ave. would run
between NE Portland and Lloyd
Center with increased frequency.

Line 10-NE Harold would become a
cross-Mall route.

Line 14 would either return to the
Mall or become a cross-Mall route.

About time!! The second ave turn-a-round and using two bridges(Hawthorne in/Morrisson out) has been confusing for customers.

Lines 17, 35, 36 and 54/56 would use
Harrison both ways instead of Clay
and Market.

This seems to be adding to the downtown “transit grid” system. Trimet has shifted away from concentrating all of their onto the transit mall.

——————————————————————————–

September 21, 2008 12:16 PM
Jeff F Says:

The Smooth Operator Says:

This seems to be adding to the downtown “transit grid” system. Trimet has shifted away from concentrating all of their onto the transit mall.

This may be a result of a need to reduce the number of buses on 5th & 6th running in conjunction with MAX trains (and autos).

Passengers on Line 14 would certainly be happier with a change in the route; transfers from the few stops on 2nd Avenue to any other route are pretty bad, not to mention that the bus doesn’t get near the busier portions of the CBD.

——————————————————————————–

September 21, 2008 12:51 PM
Bob R. Says:

The unfortunate routing of the #14 on 2nd was always temporary during construction. The question now, as the #14 returns to normal crossings of the Hawthorne Bridge in both directions, is whether the downtown portion will be cross-mall, or will return to running up and down the mall.

Personally I’m leaning in favor of running on the mall… it seems like there’s little point in taking such a popular route all the way downtown and then having a huge portion of those users transfer to access the mall. The riders should definitely be surveyed, but I’m betting a majority of downtown arrivals would prefer a one-seat-ride along the mall.

——————————————————————————–

September 21, 2008 2:24 PM
Jeff F Says:

Bob R. Says:

The unfortunate routing of the #14 on 2nd was always temporary during construction. The question now, as the #14 returns to normal crossings of the Hawthorne Bridge in both directions, is whether the downtown portion will be cross-mall, or will return to running up and down the mall.

Define “always”. From an operational standpoint, there have been some planners who like it just the way it is.

The problem with running the 14 down the Mall is this: http://trimet.org/schedules/w/t1014_1.htm

That’s a LOT of trips every day, which means a lot of buses adding to the mix on the Transit Mall. Running it across the Mall allows better transfers without all the extra traffic.

I’m not saying that’s the way it will happen, or that it’s the best solution for passengers, but it can’t be ignored, either.

——————————————————————————–

September 21, 2008 2:52 PM
Bob R. Says:

Define “always”.

Well, I’m going from what TriMet staffers have said at various meetings, from the Mall CAC prior to relocation, to the last presentation at the streetcar CAC.

There may indeed be planners within TriMet who like the #14 as it is today, but the official line has always been that this is a temporary relocation, and that TriMet doesn’t like running it on the Morrison any more than the passengers do, and that it will definitely return to a Hawthorne-bridge-only route and the only question remaining is whether to have a mall alignment or a cross-mall alignment downtown.

——————————————————————————–

September 21, 2008 6:54 PM
al m Says:

This makes me wonder if they plan on combining the two routes…

I’m sure the 70 riders would love that!

I used to love that route and drove it many sign ups when I used to work at Center street.

Trimet should publish a book:

“How to ruin a good route in one easy step”

——————————————————————————–

September 25, 2008 12:18 AM
Jason Barbour Says:

TriMet just posted notices of the meetings on the main .org website and the Portland Mall website as well. Finally there’s official online notification of the meetings!

And, there’s information on the changes they’re considering making.

TSO: This makes me wonder if they plan on combining the two routes…
Al: I’m sure the 70 riders would love that!
That’s exactly what they’re considering! And what’s now line 70 would go Frequent Service no less! (IMO: that’s nice, but what about 76? 70 is nowhere on the list of routes for frequent service, at least as of the FY 08 TIP. I never heard whether or not the FY 09 TIP has been finalized or published.)

——————————————————————————–

September 25, 2008 12:49 AM
Matthew Says:

The #70 is pretty close to a frequent service route already, it just needs a few more buses in the evenings/weekends, (it already runs 4 times an hour in the midday.) And while yes, they should do the #76 first, if it isn’t going to cost very much to make the #70 into part of 6 and therefore a frequent service route, then I really don’t see a reason not to… But even if it wasn’t frequent service, it is a great idea, people have been complaining about lack of North/South lines that don’t go into downtown, and here is one…

My feeling about the #14, is that it should take over the downtown portion of the #6, i.e. run up to Goose Hollow and back. With the frequency of that bus, single seat rides into the mall isn’t all that important because the transfer times in both directions would be very short, and running to Goose Hollow would make crosstown, (i.e. West to East) travel realistic… (Neither of the options presented are that.)

——————————————————————————–

September 25, 2008 9:13 AM
al m Says:

Why don’t they just put a streetcar on the entire six line and leave the 70 alone.

, ,

0 responses to “Buses to return to transit mall; Public input on routes sought.”

  1. Al asks: Why don’t they just put a streetcar on the entire six line and leave the 70 alone.

    Something like this has been suggested in the Streetcar System Plan district working groups, but any such route would be a number of years in the future, so if it’s a route that makes sense, it can be served by buses right now.

  2. Al asks: Why don’t they just put a streetcar on the entire six line and leave the 70 alone.

    It sounds like the only route change to the 70 would be that it wouldn’t go into the Rose Quarter. It would get an increase in trips, however, so I’m really curious why you think TriMet would “ruin” the route, Al.

  3. Darn it! I don’t read the open thread! :) And now I see its VERY long…

    My comments/questions that I plan to officially turn in regarding the 6/70 combo:
    –MLK/Grand and 11th/12th do seem a little close together for each of them to have bus service, especially crosstown (compared to the few lines farther out). However, they are planning on putting a new line on that stretch of MLK.

    –12th/17th Aves are slow and through passengers going to/from Milwaukie would be better served by improving the connection to the 33 like I mentioned before. In addition, the 6 would get affected by the railroad crossing.

    –As of Spring 2007, there were ~325 people each way/weekday who took Line 6 between (stops between Belmont/Taylor [southern-most stops away from Madison/Hawthorne] and Holladay/Pacific [near Lloyd District]) and points south of there. This does NOT include passengers who go to/from points north but are better served by stops on MLK/Grand than on 11th/12th. Everybody would loose direct service and have to either transfer to/from the new line or walk farther.

    –As noted Line 70 would probably no longer serve Rose Quarter, and the new MLK line wouldn’t either. This would affect people wanting to connect to/from the Yellow Line and NoPo buses there. Along with the Line 10 change, the 8 would be only bus from Lloyd Center that goes to RQ. This affects people, like me, who don’t want to walk down to MAX for laziness/political/security reasons.

    –On the westside, there is no mention of replacing the Frequent Service that Jefferson/Columbia now enjoy. This affects people, like me, who go to Safeway as well as those who want a more direct connection between Westside MAX and PSU/south downtown. Having Line 14 do it is one possibility; however, that would mean no direct service to central/north downtown (think US Bancorp Tower).

    –Between Goose Hollow and the Convention Center, Line 6 is almost 5 minutes faster than MAX.

    –As for “ruining” the line, I think Al doesn’t like such a long route. The longer time between breaks, less reliability because an incident on one line would affect (what’s now) another one. I’ve also talked to a current Line 6 operator who wasn’t enthusiastic about the idea, either.

  4. Hmmm

    Did anybody notice the scope of changes to the 35 on its route map? It turns out that TriMet is finally going ahead with its long threatened move of the southbound run to Moody to serve the aerial tram.

    Last February 26, I received the following from TriMet’s Tom Mills: “TriMet doesn’t currently have plans to bring Line 35 Macadam to the Aerial Tram connecting OHSU in South Waterfront with OHSU on Marquam Hill. In order for TriMet to bring bus service to South Waterfront, improvements must be made to the northern and southern portals to the area so that buses can enter and exit South Waterfront smoothly and without holding up traffic. We can’t bring bus service to South Waterfront until these improvements are made.”

    The proposed route is longer than the current one down Kelly, has several more signals, crosses Naito & the Clay St/freeway ramps, and requires a signaled left turn onto Macadam. There’s no way it’s going to take less than three minutes more than the current run, and probably more like five without pretty heavy signal prioritization. Also, Lair Hill passengers who have already lost the 40 because of the Sellwood closure will now lose the southbound 35.

    So the question becomes: Is it really worth it to serve SOWA/aerial tram passengers?

    From the Gibbs/Tram stop, it takes the streetcar six minutes to reach 1st & Harrison after an average six minute daytime wait. Add three minutes to allow for walking distance from the Harrison streetcar platform to the 35 stop and the time lost by making the connection up line compared with the proposed bus stop on Moody and we have an average current cost to a tram passenger of 15 minutes compared to the proposed alignment. The 35 currently carries about 1000 passengers daily in each direction. So with a minimum three minutes extra for current passengers we’d need (3×1000) / 15 = 200 new SOWA riders, or 20% additional ridership to break even.

    Good luck.

  5. I have to wonder how much thought TriMet has given to the impact of transferring riders between MAX and the 6, and MAX and the 10T.

    Between the Steel Bridge and Gateway trains will operate every five minutes. Anyone who has been downtown knows that train bunching is a major problem; by forcing transfers between bus and MAX, you will have more passengers, which increases dwell time. Longer dwell time negatively affects train headways. This will cause train backups and degrade outbound service.

    Further, I will put down money that TriMet will make ZERO accomodation towards bus stop amenities for these bus riders. OK, maybe not zero, they might plop down a standard bus shelter. The 6 is hardly an unpopular route, so when there are 15 passengers waiting for the bus in the rain they are supposed to take it while MAX passengers get oversized shelters?

    What I don’t understand is given Ross Williams’ old assertion that most trips in N/NE Portland are inherently local trips – why isn’t TriMet designing its service to serve this market? How many people in NE Portland want to go to Milwaukie? I see a huge gap in service the second the 6 turns onto Lombard – instead of continuing up MLK and heading out Marine Drive to Rivergate; or the lack of a Columbia Boulevard route (this seems logical – from Parkrose/Sumner TC west to St. Johns, serving a large number of commercial/industrial worksites).

    The 6 route is duplicated 100% from MLK/Lombard north, so a reroute of this route makes perfect sense (especially since a transfer to MAX will still be maintained at Expo Center; plus the 6 line can provide additional service to the Expo Center and reduce overcrowding on MAX which frequently occurs for major events).

    Service to Hayden Island should become a shuttle route instead of served by a mainline route – or the 6 line should alternate between Hayden Island and Rivergate service (given that Hayden Island will still have C-Tran service).

    Finally I agree with Al M. – longer bus routes are not a good thing.

  6. The only comment I can make on this subject is this:

    Hopefully I will never have to drive a bus in Portland or go to Downtown Portland EVER AGAIN!

    So who cares what they do?

    Not me.

    Might as well be on the moon as far as I am concerned.

    The irony of it is is that downtown Portland is 15 minutes from my front door by foot!

  7. I’ve always thought Denver’s 16th Street Transit Mall Shuttle operation is better than Portland’s. Denver’s light rail crosses their Transit Mall like ours. And a small fleet of 4-door low-floor hybrid buses runs every 2 minutes on their 1-mile long Transit Mall. The 16th Street Shuttle is a model of efficiency and convenience, even though it forces transfers. Since no transit system can function without transfers, there is no recourse but to make transfers convenient, and such a way is ideal.

    Now that our Transit Mall will operate MAX trains, the least number of buses on the Mall is possible. If a streetcar circulator were to run between MAX trains on the Transit Mall (such as suggested by Jim Howell), this would increase service frequency to the point where even more buses could be removed from the Mall.

    Denver’s Transit Mall doesn’t even have shelters because there’s no waiting. The economy along that transit mall is more active than ours.

  8. If a streetcar circulator were to run between MAX trains on the Transit Mall (such as suggested by Jim Howell), this would increase service frequency to the point where even more buses could be removed from the Mall

    Actually, some good news on that front: TriMet does intend to run an extra LRV or two as a transit mall circulator, so that headways for people seeking to ride up and down the mall will be minimized (and you can still hop on most mall buses, too, although not all routes will run the full length of the mall so you have to know which bus is which). I haven’t heard actual headway numbers being bandied about, but more than one staffer has stated that the principle is that you should always be able to look down the mall and see the next train coming. (Assuming, of course, you aren’t standing very near the start of the mall.)

  9. Anybody know why Trimet bought new LRV cars that are not compatible with the current LRV’s?

    I cant believe they would actually do that?

    What are they thinking?

  10. Anybody know why Trimet bought new LRV cars that are not compatible with the current LRV’s? […] What are they thinking?

    They don’t have to be “compatible” per se, because they will always be coupled in 2-car sets of the same type. But they can be serviced in the same bays and do have at least some spare parts in common.

    The new cars are more energy-efficient, have larger interior spaces (by the elimination of two operator cabs) and so can have more seats and room for more riders.

    The new cars are “off-the-shelf” current designs used in several other cities, including Houston and Charlotte.

    That’s probably what they were thinking.

    Supposedly, their control systems have smoother acceleration and are easier for the operators to manage (such as the use of exterior video cameras for positioning), but I suppose we won’t know how well they perform for sure until we see them in actual use along-side the existing cars.

  11. Ahh,

    That’s an explanation yes, but is it a good explanation?

    NO!

    Thanks Bob,and, you better make an appearance at you know where!

    ALM

  12. 1) I’ve heard 5 minute MAX headways on the transit mall is supposed to be the norm, although I was hoping they’d do that by running yellow and green (and probably red and blue too,) at 10 minute headways, not by turning a train around at Union Station, (there certainly is a track for it: but I was hoping that was for Tigard MAX.) Ohh well, I can dream…

    2) I was talking to someone at Siemens a few years ago who said that they wanted a couple million more for the old model cars than they do for the new ones because there is just so much more metal in them and metal is expensive. The new ones are still much much heavier than what Europe uses on their light rail systems. (I’d be very surprised if the hitches aren’t compatible though: you need to be able to use the nearby trains to move broken down trains.)

  13. Matthew Says:

    1) I’ve heard 5 minute MAX headways on the transit mall is supposed to be the norm, although I was hoping they’d do that by running yellow and green (and probably red and blue too,) at 10 minute headways, not by turning a train around at Union Station, (there certainly is a track for it: but I was hoping that was for Tigard MAX.) Ohh well, I can dream…

    One of the concerns has to be the volume of traffic across the Steel Bridge, not to mention the additional trains needed to provide 10 minute headways. Every single MAX train has to go across that bridge except for the circulator.

  14. “One of the concerns has to be the volume of traffic across the Steel Bridge, not to mention the additional trains needed to provide 10 minute headways. Every single MAX train has to go across that bridge except for the circulator.”

    The additional trains (operators/cleaning/maintenance) issue is probably the big thing. The steel bridge can do 30 trains/hr/direction: that allows 10 minute headways on Yellow, Red, and Green, and 5 minute on the Blue, which is better than what we do at rush hour right now. Don’t get me wrong the steel bridge is a bottleneck, but it isn’t as big of a deal as people make it out to be…

  15. Anybody know why Trimet bought new LRV cars that are not compatible with the current LRV’s? […] What are they thinking?

    My question is, “Do they even make the older cars anymore?” As for coupling, they would prospectively connect I think, but there is no point because Portland’s entire LRV System is limited to two unit trains. :(

  16. Al M. wrote: Anybody know why Trimet bought new LRV cars that are not compatible with the current LRV’s?

    Bob R. wrote: The new cars are “off-the-shelf” current designs used in several other cities, including Houston and Charlotte.

    Every MAX car – from the Type Is to the Type IVs, were “off the shelf” designs used elsewhere. The Type Is are of a Brazilian design (just look at the builder’s plate on the cab).

    Each MAX car is fully interchangable with other cars; they can couple up to and MU with each other. The only restrictions on car placement are:

    1. No more than one Type I car can operate in a consist, the Type I car is not ADA accessible. (Remember the old lifts?) A Type I car cannot operate by itself, either.

    2. A train operating with Type IV equipment must operate in pairs. If two Type IV cars are operating together, the cars must be coupled so that the cabs face outward. If a Type IV car is coupled to a Type I, II or III car, then the Type IV car must have its cab facing outward. Else the train will not be able to operate forwards at the terminus station.

    Frankly, the “observation salon” or whatever you want to call it on a Type IV was a waste. The only view you will have is of the opposite car, and it restricts operating flexibility of the car.

  17. Every MAX car – from the Type Is to the Type IVs, were “off the shelf” designs used elsewhere.

    Yes, this is true. But are the earlier types _still_ available at a lower price than the Type IV’s?

    Frankly, the “observation salon” or whatever you want to call it on a Type IV was a waste. The only view you will have is of the opposite car, and it restricts operating flexibility of the car.

    Who ever called it an “observation salon”? The phrase doesn’t even appear on Google in relation to MAX, Light Rail, or Siemens.

    Did someone try to justify the Type IV cars in terms of passenger views? The primary justification I’ve heard is that more passenger space is available.

  18. PS… I remember back at the time that the Type II cars were heavily promoted as being the first low-floor LRVs in the United States. Does anyone know where these cars were being used prior to this, and what design modifications had to be made to match US requirements? Or was TriMet the very first customer for this “off the shelf” design?

  19. I just received an update in my inbox today regarding the proposed 6/70 merger:

    Recently, TriMet conducted outreach with riders and residents, onboard buses, at stops, in neighborhoods and at open house events from which we received comments on the proposed concept of connecting bus lines 6-Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd and 70-12th Ave to form a single north-south cross-town route on the eastside between Jantzen Beach and downtown Milwaukie. The concept included a separate shuttle route serving the Central Eastside between the Oregon Convention Center and OMSI. We received a range of thoughtful opinions and comments. We wanted to let you know that TriMet has decided to postpone further consideration of this concept until more information is known about the eastside expansion of Portland Streetcar service scheduled for 2010. We appreciate your participation in this important process and for your continued support of public transit.

    Sincerely,
    Jon Joseph
    TriMet

    So we can all postpone thoughts of the buses delayed due to both traffic between Jantzen Beach and the Denver Ave. on/offramps being the same buses also being delayed due to trains just north of Powell. I also think interlining the two would’ve ruined a decent SE Portland north/south route (70), and submitted comments that practically said such.

  20. I just realized tonight that TriMet has quietly released plans for May 2009 downtown bus service. This isn’t on their service alerts page, but it is posted on the main schedule page for each bus route.

    IMO, the most bone-headed screw-up is that 14-Hawthorne will not return to the Transit Mall, in fact the biggest losers will be those who will need to transfer to/from MAX Blue and Red lines:

    The new route for Line 14-Hawthorne will cross the Hawthorne Bridge and loop in Downtown via SW Main, Broadway, and Madison, with bus stops on Main and Madison. Transfers to MAX and buses on the Portland Mall will be made from stops located between SW 4th and 6th avenues.

    The link to the page is here:
    http://trimet.org/alerts/14_hawthorne_may24.htm
    Is TriMet trying to kill the 14?!

  21. This isn’t on their service alerts page, but it is posted on the main schedule page for each bus route.

    TriMet issued the service alert for the #14 back on December 9th. I have it cached in my RSS feed:

    The new route for Line 14-Hawthorne will cross the Hawthorne Bridge and loop in Downtown via SW Main, Broadway, and Madison, with bus stops on Main and Madison. Transfers to MAX and buses on the Portland Mall will be made from stops located between SW 4th and 6th avenues.

    During the summer and fall, riders, neighborhood groups, businesses and other organizations gave TriMet their comments about potential changes to bus service. A range of opinions and comments were considered in developing the planned downtown bus routes.

    See:
    http://trimet.org/alerts/14_hawthorne_may24.htm

    (I’m not stating my personal opinion about the route change here, just pointing out that a service alert was indeed issued.)

  22. Not good. I transfer from #14 to Blue/Red Line. Yes, I can walk the four blocks. But if Tri-Met insists on a cross-mall alignment for the 14, why not take it all the way up to Goose Hollow or PGE Park to have direct transfer to the Red/Blue line … not to mention a transfer to the Streetcar along the way?

Leave a Reply to Erik Halstead Cancel reply

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