Big Picture Transit Measures – What’s in our local future?


[Moderator: I’ve turned Douglas K’s comment in the Open Topics thread into it’s own post.]

Douglas K. Wrote:

In Los Angeles, voters approved Measure R by 67% to 33% – a $40 billion-over-30-year project to expand subway, light rail, commuter rail, busways, and local/limited bus service throughout Los Angeles County.

In the Seattle area, voters passed (barely) Sound Transit’s Proposition 1, $17.9 billion plan to expand express buses, light rail, and commuter rail throughout the Puget Sound region.

Asking for money for huge packages of transit projects is nothing new. Four years ago, Denver voters approved the $4.7 billion FasTracks package for light rail, commuter rail and bus rapid transit.

If they can do it, we can do it.

Is it really that far-fetched to ask Tri-Met area voters to approve a major light rail, commuter rail, interurban trolley (Portland-Lake Oswego) and bus rapid transit package? What’s the wish list? If Tri-Met were to go to voters with a big-multi-project transit proposal, what should be included?

Also, Tri-Met needs to stop getting gun-shy about asking voters for money. Tri-Met district voters rejected ONE light rail fudning plan (downtown to Clackamas TC) 10 years by a narrow margin, in an election when it was competing with a number of other ballot measures. But that was after they voted “yes” on three successive light rail projects (Westside light rail in 1990, South/North in 1994, and the voter referral of South/North state funding in 1996. Light rail is popular and has a history of support. There’s no reason a comprehensive regional transit plan couldn’t pass, as long as it served all areas.


69 responses to “Big Picture Transit Measures – What’s in our local future?”

  1. Being from Denver… let me just remind you, FasTracks was passed in an entirely different economic climate. Colorado voters just defeated most of the tax-increase related initiatives on our lengthy ballot, which has our RTD wondering if they can actually go back to the voters to pay for the material increases that the FasTracks program has experienced in the last four years.

  2. Fair enough … there are a lot of apples-to-oranges comparisons here. While both the Los Angeles and Puget Sound measures passed in this economic climate, they were fraction-of-a-cent increases to the sales tax, rather than the property-tax-backed bond measure that Tri-Met would need to put before the voters. That means, among other things, that we couldn’t support projects in the tens of billions of dollars range.

    But then, I doubt we would need tens of billions to complete even the most ambitious wish list for this area. Unless someone is pushing for a subway or an urban maglev network or something.

  3. I think we should rather determine rail transit to be fundamental and put in place the expectation that certain routes will eventually be built. And for the interim, bus service will suffice. This should affect how land development will occur and can continue in tough economic times.

    Crossing the Steel Bridge on MAX today I mentioned (loud enought to carry) my touted, flouted reason for putting streetcar rail on the Broadway Bridge — with junction spurs it could form another river crossing for MAX during closures of the Steel Bridge. Quite a few heads could be seen grinding as they turned and stared at the Broadway Bridge. And I thought it was a no-brainer.

  4. I think a big measure would be good – in a few years, probably – but I think it is crucial that a few road improvements get thrown in. The idea needs to be building a future transportation network that serves everyone.

    It will be much easier to pass if voters can see the big picture, as opposed to just asking for a few tracks here and there.

  5. Crossing the Steel Bridge on MAX today I mentioned (loud enought to carry) my touted, flouted reason for putting streetcar rail on the Broadway Bridge — with junction spurs it could form another river crossing for MAX during closures of the Steel Bridge.

    That sounds like an interesting idea… it would only be off by a block from joining with the new Transit Mall alignment on 5th/6th… what route would you propose for reaching the original alignment on 1st?

  6. With a president focused on hard economic development such as infrastructure, I believe that you’re shooting yourself in the foot if you don’t have matching funds for anything that might come down the pipe. Those like Denver, Hawaii, Houston, Seattle, Los Angeles and others are in a position to rocket ahead. Not that tri-met isn’t lined up, but places such as St. Louis that rejected matching funds are going to be in a bad position to pick up funding for expansion.

  7. “billy”, now that the election is over, do you suppose your friend JK might reappear? We do so miss the presence of those “loyal opposition” who post under their real name.

  8. Don’t forget Proposition 1A and Measure Q, also in California:

    1A — the High Speed Rail bond. Authorizes the state to spend $10 billion to leverage funding for a $40-50 billion project to build a statewide high speed rail system. This is DEFINITELY something that Oregon should be considering — I can’t think of a better way to boost the economies of medium-sized cities statewide than to connect them to Portland via a 200mph train. Seriously.

    Measure Q (Marin & Sonoma Counties): Authorizes construction of a commuter rail system and parallel bicycle path connecting the Larkspur Ferry (to San Francisco) through Sonoma County’s wine country to Cloverdale, spitting distance from the Mendocino County line. Similarly, Portland has a number of potentially-good commuter rail corridors that would make sense to fund, especially along this model (with the parallel bike path funded & constructed at the same time)!

    Proposition 1A is a $10 billion bond to be repaid from the state’s general fund.

    Measure Q is funded based on an increase in the sales tax in those two counties.

  9. I honestly thought Prop. 1 up here would go down in defeat, as it was a risky move. A debate on a local talk radio show up here did not go that well. It went from an honest dialogue to a bully attack. It did not help that the representative from the pro side was calling from a phone, but the opponent was in studio. The latter started talking down to the guy, going on about how rail is old, these new Euro-style buses are the way of the future. Apparently the opponent thought the LRVs were like the old Melbourne Streetcars that used to run on the Waterfront line. Would love to have sent that opponent to Melbourne so he could see in person what has replaced many of those W-class trams. Some of the finest, Euro-style rail cars. ALthough I doubt the Combino and Citadis would be allowed in the U.S, but they are interesting designs. Also, LINK is more of Light Rapid Transit instead of Light Rail, it is mostly grade separated. It is also en-route to the first opening next year. Some of the first rail improvements on the plan include more SOUNDER commuter trains, lengthening station platforms, and some Tacoma LINK expansion.(It is a mix of Light Rail and Streetcar, unlike Central LINK). That should happen by 2015, but I doubt it will be on-time. Tacoma has to find the matching money, as part of the plan.

  10. I think we could pass something like that in Portland, but I’d most likely vote against it…

    Most drivers will cede some funding to transit users. Many metro areas in the country have done so. Almost every area that tries it finds an increase in ridership.

    LA’s last freeway was I-105. They never said they won’t improve them, just nothing new. New routes are transit. Isn’t that a great first step for a Car City like LA?

    If you want $40 billion, you have to concede that your opponents might want something as well. Unless you’re handing 17.5x as much to Wall Street, then apparently anything goes.

  11. LA’s last freeway was I-105. They never said they won’t improve them, just nothing new. New routes are transit.

    Uhmmm, what?

    The project list includes 4.5 miles of new freeway, built in a tunnel. The city of South Pasadena is suing the equivalent of Metro in LA for not even pretending to follow environmental laws on the thing…

    I wouldn’t vote for it.

  12. I wouldn’t vote for it.

    So tunnels are out too? I’d love to see any citation that shows LA isn’t doing their due diligence on this, since they’ve worked on it for 40 or so years.

    Oh, and the I-710 route is still to be determined, in part by what the DEIS finds. That’s a draft environmental impact statement, for those unfamiliar.

    It’s hard to violate environmental laws when you haven’t even planned a specific route yet.

  13. “So tunnels are out too?”

    That is hardly a “freeway improvement” like you were claiming before. It is a major freeway extension. It is a bigger deal than the CRC.

    “I’d love to see any citation that shows LA isn’t doing their due diligence on this, since they’ve worked on it for 40 or so years.”

    Sure. The city of South Pasadena’s website:
    http://www.ci.south-pasadena.ca.us/transportation/710.html
    “The City objected to that funding since the SR-710 tunnel did not fit any of the categories Metro cited for an exemption to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Metro did not remove the SR-710 tunnel from the Expenditure Plan, so the City filed a CEQA lawsuit against Metro on August 27.”

    (I’m friends with a guy that spent most of his life fighting this thing, and just recently moved to Portland. And the proposed surface alignment went right by my aunt’s house, so you really aren’t going to convince me on this thing…)

  14. It’s even worse than $6.9 billion, but to be fair to RTD, the increases are largely due to an extraordinary materials price increase that, IMHO, would have been difficult for anyone to forsee and budget for. Even if they had got it right on, those opposing FasTracks would have contended that RTD was asking for money it didn’t need because historical data didn’t suggest that materials would increase so much.

  15. TriMet should join with Metro on a transportation bond measure that would fund transit…bus, MAX and Streetcar AND complete the regional Trails network. These are the unfinished regional transportation systems.
    The freeway network is complete…except for an expressway thru Lake Oswego and over the Willamette (ha,ha,ha). Adding more roadway capacity elsewhere is a waste of money…can’t build your way out, and destructive of the community fabric, bringing more noise, air & water pollution and literally death to our streets.

  16. I’d rather see a ballot measure for creating a Willamette Valley Regional Transit Agency.

    Purpose would be to fund operations between the cities from Eugene to Portland.

    Funding would be by a small property tax for the counties involved, and the cost shouldn’t be too onerous on any involved.

    Express bus and commuter rail along the I-5 corridor, and bus services connecting the cities along the other highways in the area.

    Any leftover funds could be used to prop up the cash strapped transit agencies in the cities (as Cherriots and LTD are both cutting service).

  17. With the spending power of pay checks shrinking, families having trouble making ends meet, the high rate of unemployment and an economy in recession, it is NO time to raise taxes.

    Oregon’s economy is usually behind the curve and recovers much later than the national economy. With transit passengers paying only 21 percent of the operational costs, the suggestion of placing a taxpayer funded bond measure for more transit infrastructure is pure selfishness on the part of transit advocates. If passed by voters, such a mover would only increase the ongoing public debt for generations to come. It needs to be the transit passengers themselves, the users of transit, that fund new transit infrastructure with an increase in transit fares.

    Barack Obama in his news conference today called the auto industry the “backbone of American Manufacturing”. As the auto industry goes, so does the US economy. The US auto industry is in trouble. No one needs to look farther than right here in Portland and the closing the Freightliner plant to see the effects of an estimated trickle down and the loss of 2700 family wage jobs. A far better stimulus package to get the economy moving again, instead of increasing property taxes for transit infrastructure and thereby increasing the ongoing debt to finance the operations of said transit infrastructure, would be for Oregon to provide a significant income tax credit for the purchase of ANY new American (only) car or truck. Instead of the continual draining of public funds for additional transit operations, car ownership is an investment in the economy, particularly when a person considers driving is currently the only mode of transport where the users directly pay taxes that fund the roads and land based transportation infrastructure.

  18. The Auto Industry may be our backbone, but they put it that way. FDR breaking up the holding companies that owned Utilities and Traction Companies may have made it easier for GM’s supposed streetcar conspiracy to happen, but replacing streetcars with buses, destroyed an industry. The Type 1 cars from Bombardier, and Type 2,3,4 cars are from Siemens, but it seems it is fast becoming the modern version of the PCC streetcar. The PCC was a good car, and where they were kept, they lasted a long time. In fact, some have been brought back into service.(San Francisco’s F-Market line, and Philadelphia’s Route 15 are notable examples). The Type 4, which Siemens calls the S70(I believe) in the US, and the Avanto in EUrope, seems to have some things in common with the PCC, a baseline design that was easy to customize. A shorter version was requested by the UTA in Salt Lake City, so they would not have to lengthen the TRAX station platforms, and I noticed from photos of the Type 4s, they have removed one driver’s compartment to add some extra seats(plus if they are running in two car trains, I doubt single-enders will be too much of a problem).

    Up here, there is some on local blogs talking about ending the 30+ year experiment with the Downtown Ride Free Area because it is an impediment to fare collection outside of the Ride Free Area. Many times I have been on a Metro Bus where the driver has had to abandon fare collection period because the bus was too full. More off vehicle fare collection should be considered, beyond the upcoming RapidRide BRT scheme. I have been on an inbound to Downtown bus, the 15-Ballard, where the driver has had a problem with fare collection. The 15 is a route where a driver and a passenger cannot catch a break. First, it is a heavily used route, second, it crosses the Lake Washington Ship Canal on a drawbridge, the ancient Ballard Bridge, and third it passes by a high school. These factors can make a bus overloaded. I had a temp job a few weeks ago in that area, and a combination of getting off work as Ballard High School dismisses, and the bridge opening, as fishing boats are in the middle of heading off for there latest seasons, slowed this particular route down. The first bus, the driver said, catch the next one. The second one, took the fare, and waited for me to get in the back of the bus before pulling away. Not as a safety concern, as he was SRO as well, but to get to the back of the bus through the rear door! That was one issue I had with I-985. The author’s idea of rush hour is old. The city has put in Business Access-Transit lanes for Metro Bus Routes on Elliot Ave, and 15th Ave NW, and if those qualified as HOV lanes under 985, it would have meant they were extra lanes, even though the hours the lanes are not in operation for transit, they are parking lanes. Ballard High School dismisses at 2:15PM.

    Now there is one urban bus operation in Washington State that has a farebox recovery worse than KCM, and that is Pierce Transit, but I wonder if long deadhead times have anything to do with it? King COunty Metro has several garages, Atlantic, Central, Ryerson(all three in South Downtown, which also hosts the Amtrak/SOUNDER yard, and the LINK LRT maintenance base, all in an area between I-5 and the SR99 and Royal Brougham and Spokane Streets), Bellevue, East, South, and North, while PT, just has there one base, in Lakewood.

    Fuel costs hamper farebox recovery, and fares have gone up. Metro is barely able to handle 400,000 riders a day, a record for them, while diesel for them reached $4 per gallon(they pay a little less, plus tax exemptions). A blogger found some photos in a Metro study from the 1980s in the Seattle Public Library, of a proposed Trolleybus Expansion. SOme of the routes under the plan were re-wired, such as the 7(thankfully). The other routes planned for phase 1 included the 11-Madison Park(former Trolleybus and Cable Car route), 27-Yesler(former Cable Car route, and several steep grades), the 15, 18, and a West Seattle Route. Phase II would have been more ambitious. The 5-Greenwood, 6-Aurora Villiage(which wold have been the first route outside of the city), and the 71,72,73. All of these routes are heavily used, and some run on very frequent headways. The cost of electrifying these routes in the 1980s is cheap by today’s standards. The adjusted for inflation cost? $120 million. Not sure, but I think that money then was ate up by the Bus Tunnel that was built. The trolleybus fleet got an ironic consolation gift. 60 of the tunnel buses were converted for surface trolley operation, and so far, so good on operations. Although if they had built that bigger network in the 80s, that would be less diesel being consumed. Most of Seattle City Light’s power comes from Hydro, I think they get some of the load from the Energy Northwest(AKA WPPSS) Nuclear plant at Hanford, and are buying wind power. There is talk by some, to tap the Puget Sound for wave and tidal power.

    http://transit.metrokc.gov/am/reports/2007/2007-RtPerf-PeerComp.pdf

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/viriyincy/2554634211

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/viriyincy/2554634205

  19. Putting in overhead wires for trolley busses is economical and far more eco friendly as compared to manufacturing the steel and digging up the streets to add rails for streetcars. Yet Portland has a Transportation Commissioner, now Mayor elect that is too socialistically bias, short sighted and egotistically rigid with his own preconceived mode first views to allow any kind of truly un-bias economic study of mode options. Any official citizen participation organized is always a stacked deck specifically chosen to support his preconceived agendas with a litmus test required to be appointed. That is one reason why most citizen committees are comprised of the same usual suspects that are also official participants of just about every other transportation related citizen committee in town.

    Driving, low cost fuels and the auto industry actually keep the economy rolling The economic downturn, now a recession, only demonstrates the fatal flaw in the big picture of government tax, spend and forever subsidize policies for frills like lavish streetcar systems that in actuality are a costly drain on the economy as a whole Add in the taxpayer subsidies for targeted big development and property tax abatement policies on streetcar routes and elsewhere that are also a drain on funds for other public services, and it becomes easily to understand the lack of respect the environmental community has for a vibrant economy along with freedoms of choice this country was founded upon. Just like the bicyclists that want more bicycle infrastructure as long as somebody else pays for it; the environmental community too wants someone else to pay for their agenda. The results of this egocentric attitude has significantly contributed to the recession of today and the downturn in the economy.

  20. That is one reason why most citizen committees are comprised of the same usual suspects that are also official participants of just about every other transportation related citizen committee in town.

    The Streetcar System Plan district working groups are open to anyone who wishes to attend. There are no ideological preconditions.

    Much outreach has been done, including direct canvassing on-foot of businesses and residences along certain corridors, mailings, community workshops, etc. A diversity of opinions, including skepticism of streetcars and the desire to include other modes has been discussed at these working group meetings. I know I saw you and heard you speak at at least one workshop, but I haven’t attended many NE District Working Group meetings, so I don’t know if you have been attending those. There were also surveys, which have had over 2,000 responses so far.

    Likewise, the specific concerns of the neighborhood association in which both you and I reside were recently presented and discussed at the Streetcar CAC. I think it is fair to say that the neighborhood association is rather skeptical of streetcars, development, and funding issues.

    In any case, this is a thread about big-picture multi-modal transit plans, such as those recently passed in other communities, not the current piecemeal approach. It is a discussion not of “what is” but of “what could be”.

  21. Bob R. wrote: The Streetcar System Plan district working groups are open to anyone who wishes to attend. There are no ideological preconditions.

    Unfortunately that is just not true.

    The precondition is that there is to be streetcar planning, NOT transit planning.

    When SW Portland made it clear that Streetcar was not a viable option – the City leaders responsible for the plan simply backed out of SW… Today there is no plan for southwest Portland and no interest in doing so (except for, maybe, a light rail line down Barbur Boulevard – something that is 15-20 years away, and doesn’t address transit needs to neighborhoods like Multnomah Village, Garden Home, or Hillsdale – ironically, the original “Streetcar Suburbs” of southwest Portland.)

    In speaking with one of the folks in charge of Streetcar planning last week, the impression I got was loud and clear – the City is interested only in Streetcar planning, and has zero interest in anything BUT Streetcar planning. It has zero interest in using enhanced bus service as a means to step to streetcar.

    The impression I walked out of that was that Portland is only concerned about Streetcars, and not a truly regional, wide-ranging transit plan designed to encourage people to ride transit. In fact, since the election, I’ve actually grown more afraid that the direction of transit in Portland is going to be better service – to a smaller reach of the region and an explicit drawing down of transit service outside of the chosen regions.

    To address Bob’s statement, It is a discussion not of “what is” but of “what could be”, I’ve discussed what Portland could be, but in the last week my gut feeling is that improved bus service just is not going to happen in Portland because the political leaders do not want to do it. Ironically, for a group of folks who call themselves “democrats” whose party platform repeatedly calls for improving life for “all Americans”, Portland’s transit plan is all about tax breaks and benefits to the wealthy who can afford above-market rate condos and their developers — not about serving Bill the Bus Rider who’s just trying to get by and earn an honest living. It’s more important to Portland’s leaders to build a sexy streetcar line, than to improve a utilitarian service.

  22. Matthew, filing a lawsuit against someone is different than …not even pretending to follow environmental laws on the thing…

    South Pasadena filed a lawsuit. Yes, they’ve gotten injunctions in the past, but that’s a world of difference from “not even pretending to follow environmental laws.” I’ve heard the same hyperbole about many freeway projects that are later completed without any successful lawsuits, just frivolous ones that delay things and raise costs.

    Many in South Pasadena who I’ve spoken to have said that the biggest reason they’re fighting the freeway is because they don’t like roads. I agree that a freeway tearing through downtown Pasadena isn’t a great idea, but I can’t quite grasp the anti-tunnel groups’ appeal other than an irrational hatred for roads.

  23. Matthew, filing a lawsuit against someone is different than …not even pretending to follow environmental laws on the thing

    Uhmmm, lets look back at my original quote.

    “The city of South Pasadena is suing the equivalent of Metro in LA for not even pretending to follow environmental laws on the thing…”

    I didn’t say that they weren’t following environmental law, (although, they are not,) I’m saying the city of South Pasadena is filing a lawsuit about that. As such, no there is no difference between

  24. Erik, regarding your comments, for what it’s worth, here is an excerpt from the minutes of this week’s Streetcar CAC meeting:

    Dan Zalkow commented that there is a missing option when we discuss transit. There is a jump from a regular bus to a streetcar when there should be a third option in the middle such as a fancier electric trolley bus option that may be the best option in some situations. Sweeney responded that there is a difference in what each form of transportation accomplishes. Electric busses are great to solve transportation issues but they don’t spur development like rail transit does. Steve Fossler added that who we’re talking to should affect how we answer the question. Bob Richardson added that the various neighborhoods do have different views and opinions about streetcar and transit based on the area they are in and how they view their neighborhood. Richardson also expressed that trolleybuses do represent enhanced local transit service and a capital improvement, and there does not appear to be a venue right now where these improvements can be requested/discussed, and that it also naturally comes up as an alternative in conversations where streetcars are desired but engineering issues preclude them. So we shouldn’t be surprised when this keeps coming up as a topic, and we should consider whether and how to address the issue.

    The people on the advisory committee are not unaware of these concerns, and have had discussions regarding them.

    I still don’t think it’s inappropriate to have a planning sub-process which focuses on streetcars alone, as I do believe (and I know this is debated hotly by some) they do have a development-driving quality to them. The streetcar planning process, more than other local transit modes, requires a multidimensional planning approach which includes a look at development patterns, planning/zoning, etc., in addition to routes and ridership.

    What I do agree is missing is a way for neighborhoods to interact and push for enhanced local transit service where streetcars aren’t the answer. I hope the comments of me and others at meetings like this will help to drive that point home.

    But in my view the solution here isn’t _less_ streetcar planning, but _more_ enhanced transit planning which is technology-independent. Can we at least agree on that?

  25. Getting back to the original discussion:

    I think that if we identified three routes we’d like to see for light rail in the next 15 years (SW Portland to Hillsdale to Tigard, Foster or Clinton, extension into Vancouver?), 5 streets that could be converted into real BRT routes (Burnside, E 39th, E 81st?, extensions into far reaching Clackamas and Washington County) and coupled that with some needed highway repavements et al, and if we also made sure that it looked like every region of the metropolis stood to gain from the measure, I could see something like that passing so long as it was coupled with an effective ad campaign and support from civic leaders as well as environmental/transit/economic leaders.

  26. Bob R. wrote But in my view the solution here isn’t _less_ streetcar planning, but _more_ enhanced transit planning which is technology-independent. Can we at least agree on that?

    You’re absolutely right.

    When used appropriately, EACH mode of transport can work together to create a system that is functional and provides greater benefit than just the concept of transportation – specifically land use. When you look at progressive cities when it comes to land-use planning, urban design, dense development – you don’t see Streetcars. You see a mix of transit options. You see buses AND streetcars AND light rail AND subway working together, each performing a different but complementary role. Cities like Amsterdam, London, Vancouver – have all embraced and invested upon bus service as part of their overall transit system that includes rail-based transit as well.

    I have no problem for planning for Streetcar as long as it is in the context of “how do we make transit better”. I see mode of transport as a progression – from walking/biking to jitney to neighborhood bus to trunk bus to high capacity bus to streetcar. I see light rail serving a very different function than streetcar, yet we are trying to merge the two together (i.e Portland-Milwaukie, Portland-Lake Oswego) when today’s MAX really fits more into the definition of an “interurban” line – if we are to extend Streetcar to the Lloyd District, we really ought to eliminate the MAX stops from Rose Quarter to Hollywood; MAX should NOT serve the South Waterfront in the same sense, and there should be discussion of eliminating the way MAX works downtown – instead of running on a transit mall, create a “MAX Station” (possibly underground?) that looks, feels and functions more like Union Station (but more central to the downtown area).

    Instead of designing brand new streetcar lines, why aren’t we looking at taking existing TriMet bus routes and turning them into Streetcars? There’s no reason why we can’t — and in fact many of the investments in Streetcar, such as stop improvements, can be done TODAY while the route is still served by buses (look at the Streetcar stops on S.W. 11th Avenue that are shared with bus routes.) A high-capacity articulated bus can use those routes today, and as soon as Streetcar is built on a street, those buses can be moved to another route while the improved stops are serving Streetcar right away with only the addition of track and overhead (if the bus wasn’t already upgraded to a trolleybus).

    The problem is that our planning right now is Streetcar-centric, and if it’s not a Streetcar or Light Rail, the City of Portland, Metro and TriMet want nothing to do with it. That is a disservice to Portland’s transit riders – two-thirds of whom are on the bus – and it’s underscored by missing transit links because of this lack of planning – one cannot get from Yellow Line MAX to Rivergate, nor are there transit connections from WES to Tualatin, nor local feeders to Tigard. One who wishes to transfer between bus and WES at Washington Square is in for a big surprise as TriMet made no provision for bus riders. And, because of poor planning, TriMet relocated a bus route in Tualatin to serve the WES stop – but moved it away from Tualatin’s primary shopping center of Fred Meyer, Martinazzi Square, and the K-Mart shopping center — all because TriMet only thought about WES, and not the needs of local residents who don’t necessary travel during “weekday rush hours”.

  27. Andrew Dawson said

    “Also there are cheaper ways to reinstall trrack.”

    I’ve wondered about that myself. And do rail based vehicles need to be as heavy as they are? The Portland Streetcar weighs 30 tons. I sure wouldn’t want it to blow off the track in a hurricane, but perhaps there is another solution, as long as it is only a one level vehicle.

    I still like what Erik H. revealed, some months back, about the German double-decker railbus. Just runs on existing rails. I don’t know about Portland using it at this stage, since we seem too committed, but what about other communities where there are some existing rails—or at least vacated rights-of-way that could be rebuilt? It looks sort of like an overgrown city bus—and carries about twice the number of people, and the noisy kids can go to the upper level. It could run on biodiesel, with no overhead wires.

    Some smaller cities have put their systems in for far less cost. But not us, I guess.

    Don’t we ever learn from the Europeans?

  28. From the site Andrew linked to, it looks like the LR-55 technology is still unproved. If it works in practice, great. But I’d rather Portland not be the pioneer. If NETCo can make it work, the implications for rail transit are amazing … Portland could install a mile of new streetcar track in a month or so, and a city-wide streetcar system becomes a dramatically more affordable goal.

    But that depends on the technology actually working on the ground.

    On the main topic, which Bob nicely summarized as a thread about big-picture multi-modal transit plans, such as those recently passed in other communities, not the current piecemeal approach

    I’d take it as a given that by the time any big-picture multi-modal plan were to reach the ballot, the Milwaukie MAX line would already be funded and underway, as would the eastside streetcar line. I’ll also assume that LRT to vancouver will be subsumed in the CRC. So my view of the “big picture” plan would include:

    – Light rail from Milwaukie to Oregon City or Clackamas Community College.
    – Light rail on the Barbur corridor from Portland to Tigard TC or Tualatin.

    Other possible LRT projects would be
    – light rail from Beaverton TC to Tigard TC
    – Blue line extension to Troutdale
    – Blue line extension to Forest Grove

    I’d also put Streetcar to Lake Oswego in the project. I expect the measure could include some Portland Streetcar projects that cover longer distances and connect to light rail, such as Hawthorne/Foster to Lents or Broadway/Sandy to Park Rose TC.

    Another obvious rail project is a DMU connection from Milwaukie TC to Tigard or Beaverton, assuming Tri-Met can work out scheduling issues with Portland & Western Railroad. Perhaps it could include additional track and siding on the WES line to allow WES to run throughout the day, alongside freight traffic.

    As far as buses go, I’d look at creating HOV lanes on the freeways with dedicated on-ramps for express buses. I wonder if there’s enough potential ridership to support several express bus lines that travel between distant transit centers. One concept: “Line Zero” — a loop route where buses travel clockwise and counterclockwise on the freeways between Oregon City TC, Clackamas TC, Gateway TC, PSU/South Transit Mall, Beaverton TC, Tigard TC, Tualatin P&R, and back to Oregon City. Another possibility: an express bus from Gresham and/or Troutdale to downtown to Hillsboro. Or maybe a Gateway/Beaverton express that skips downtown altogether.

    I’d also look at Bus Rapid Transit projects, although I’m not sure what corridors would make sense. The Barbur corridor might be good for BRT if projected ridership isn’t high enough to justify light rail.

    Another BRT possibility is Milwaukie-Clackamas TC, continuing out Sunnyside Road to Damascus as the area develops. That BRT line could continue express from Milwaukie to downtown during rush hour, to give peak-hour commuters a single-seat ride.

    Part of the money could be used for significant upgrades of bus stops (curb extensions, larger shelters, better lighting) along Tri-Met’s frequent service routes.

    I like the idea of including bikeways in the project as well; bike boulevards and lane striping are dirt cheap, even separated paths are pretty inexpensive compared to transit projects. Maybe 5% to 10% of the funding for bikeways could go a long way to establishing an integrated regional bikeway network.

  29. The key is projects for all corners of the region and a variety of transportation modes to serve various needs of the neighborhoods.

    I could see something like a MAX lines on Barbur, extensions to Oregon City, MHCC, Vancouver and Forest Grove, yellow line branch to St. John. Commuter rail extension to Salem. Streetcar to Lake Oswego with Sellwood bridge branch to Tacoma St. MAX station. BRT on Powell/Foster including busway connecting new TriMet bridge into downtown (with a different route than Milwaukie MAX in this RiverPlace area). A huge purchase of new buses including upgrading the frequent service bus lines to something more like LA’s Rapid buses. More bus bulbs and better shelters on frequent routes. Continue to expand frequent service to more routes. Owl service. Purchase of articulated buses. Bus lanes on the Hawthorne bridge, the hawthorne approaches and into downtown. Express freeway coach buses serving Tualatin, Barbur TC, Outer Sunset Highway/Tanasbourne and Troutdale. BRT on TV Highway. Crosstown BRT: Oregon City-West Linn-Lake Oswego-Kruse Way-Tigard-Washington Square-Beaverton. Quality protected bike lanes on key corridors like Hawthorne, Belmont and NW Flanders to name a few. Banfield ped/bike path, Willamette Shore ped/bike path. Maybe electric trolley buses on major inbound/outbound east side routes (Sandy, Hawthorne, belmont, burnside, mississippi, mlk). Local road bridge with MAX and bike path to Hayden Island and Vancouver. New 2 lane Lake Oswego-Oak Grove bridge. I-5/99 connector.

    (assumes Sellwood bridge and Milwaukie MAX already built and paid)

  30. Douglas K. wrote: Another obvious rail project is a DMU connection from Milwaukie TC to Tigard or Beaverton, assuming Tri-Met can work out scheduling issues with Portland & Western Railroad. Perhaps it could include additional track and siding on the WES line to allow WES to run throughout the day, alongside freight traffic.

    My proposal was for a heavy-rail (DMU) route from Sherwood to Milwaukie, stopping only at Tualatin (transfer to WES) and Lake Oswego (transfer to a future Streetcar/MAX line).

    From Sherwood to Lake Oswego would be quite cheap to build, but learning from the WES experience we have a few problems:

    1. The route is entirely owned by Union Pacific. UP extorted Washington County out of $24 million to buy the nearly 6 miles of track from Beaverton to Tigard, or $4 million per mile of track – just in right-of-way acquisition costs.

    Sherwood to Milwaukie is 13.8 miles. Figure UP is going to want $55 million – and add a little bit for inflation, so closer to $60. That’s JUST to buy the land.

    There are four significant bridges on the route, all of which require extensive rebuilding before used for high speed rail operations. These bridges are far larger than any of the bridges on the WES route – north of Sherwood, the Tualatin River bridge in Tualatin, the Willamette River bridge in Lake Oswego, and the Kellogg Lake bridge in Milwaukie. Figure at least $20M for each bridge.

    Stations are probably the cheapest, because I wouldn’t count on building anything more than standard platforms. If we could use a low-floor vehicle, we’d eliminate a lot of complexities TriMet built into the WES line – gauntlet tracks and high-level platforms. Nor would I consider any park-and-ride facilities, instead relying on extensive local bus systems to feed passengers into the station in Sherwood and Tualatin, and using existing transit services in Lake Oswego (accomplished by relocating the “transit center”) and Milwaukie.

    The ability to use non-FRA compliant vehicles is easier, since P&W operations into Sherwood is on an as-needed basis, typically a few times a week at most, and always at night. From Cook junction to Milwaukie is about daily, at night. So you already have time-separation between freight and passenger movements. (The WES route sees far more traffic, several trains a day.)

    WES is at a price tag of $120M for 14.7 miles of track, or just over $8M/mile. Building a “connector” line would cost about the same, since it’s only one mile less – but as noted there would be some cost savings that weren’t achievable with WES. With a connecting track in Tualatin, the existing WES shop could also be used for maintaining the cars of the new service (with merely a deadhead run on the WES route from Wilsonville to Tualatin) saving about $5-10M compared with WES…however, the WES shop was built specifically for the CRC DMU, and would have to be retooled for a new type of car. It is also very space constrained and has limited space for car storage (whereas there are numerous industrial sites between Tualatin and Sherwood, and north of Milwaukie, that could be used for a new shop.)

  31. Douglas K. wrote: Part of the money could be used for significant upgrades of bus stops (curb extensions, larger shelters, better lighting) along Tri-Met’s frequent service routes.

    JW wrote: A huge purchase of new buses including upgrading the frequent service bus lines to something more like LA’s Rapid buses. More bus bulbs and better shelters on frequent routes.

    I don’t think that bus improvements should be limited to “frequent service” routes. In fact, bus bulbs, shelters, and other amenities should be added to as many routes as possible except for the lightest of the low density routes, or ones that could be targeted as “route deviation” routes (TriMet doesn’t have any such routes – the Cedar Mill Shuttle comes closest to this concept – but they could be useful for developing service within less dense residential neighborhoods)

    The Frequent Service routes should have these improvements at every stop, PLUS the “above and beyond” amenities like Wi-Fi on the buses; bus stops that incorporate art and oversized shelters, increasing schedule reliability and frequency and extending hours of service, including half-hourly or hourly “owl” service.

    One good example is the 44-Capitol Highway route, which on a ridership/boardings/revenue perspective actually performs BETTER than the 12-Barbur Boulevard, yet the 12 is Frequent Service and the 44 is not. The 44 is a perfect example of a bus route that has everything that Portland wants out of a “streetcar” route – dense, walkable neighborhoods and local communities, plus major community centers and a PCC campus – yet suffers from a lack of attention by Portland’s regional planners. As a result many neighborhoods see little use for the 44 because of poorly designed bus stops and sidewalk access, and Multnomah Village (an excellent example of what Portland wants to develop more of) is served only inbound by a “pathetic” shelter in which the back door of the bus doesn’t open out onto the bus bulb but into the back of a parked car, and outbound the bus stop is in the middle of the street as buses actually cannot pull up to the sidewalk due to diagonal parking, and the stop is in a driveway. The bus “stop” is twenty feet off of the curb. (The next stop west for the 44 is located at the base of a steep grade and is likewise not ADA compliant – it also requires buses to make a VERY sharp right hand turn which is difficult to do and often causes delays if there is heavy eastbound traffic as the bus can’t make the turn without taking up the eastbound lane.)

    In case anyone is wondering what I’m talking about, put this in Google Earth/Maps or Terraserver:

    45°28’5.63″N 122°42’48.28″W

    This stop is also served by the 45 and 64 lines.

  32. Bob. Just getting downtown is enough. Expo line would run to Clackamas and affect transfers at Rose quarter. The other eastside lines route to the transit mall via Larrabee, Broadway Bridge, NW Broadway and Hoyt to 5th/6th. Westside lines would just reach the turnaround point on 1st. We’re talking about an emergency back up route.

  33. ^
    good point about sidewalks, adding sidewalks and bus stop platforms in neighborhoods should be part of any large transit plans. also, i agree about bus bulbs and stop improvements for all bus lines and more deluxe amenities for freq. service.

    about DMU service Sherwood to Milwaukie… should it end at Milwaukie or continue to Portland Union Station? Obviously going into Union Station complicates it tremendously and requires dealing with the UP mainline but would it be worth it ridership-wise?

    Would a high capacity transit line via either the old Oregon Electric or Red Electric route be feasible? Or a high capacity transit route via the Springwater Corridor? as far as whether the right of way is intact, abutting properties, adjacent land use supporting HCT, etc.

  34. Long-term there are a number of projects needed (beyond the PDX-Mil line and Sellwood bridge).

    – More capacity through downtown and quicker service. While MAX is frequent enough downtown, the street running kills the service if you want to go across the metro region. Twenty-two minutes from Rose Quarter to the Zoo is too much. Either close stops, or underground the MAX through downtown. The surface rail can be left to the streetcar. Undergrounding MAX and putting in a reduced number of stops (Union Station, Pioneer Ct Sq, PSU and another one perhaps) will allow those who are using MAX to get to their destination outside of downtown quicker.

    – DMU service from Milwaukie to Sherwood (via LO and Tualatin) and Milwaukie to Beaverton (via LO). As Erik points out above, could be expensive, but it would provide a connection that is not available for cars.

    – Enhance bus service and amenities, especially at stops. Triptracker is nice, but not everyone has a cellphone. Work with banks to sell tickets at the ATMs. Express bus from Forest Grove to Hillsboro to PDX to Gresham (until they get MAX through downtown quicker). Define some critical routes and offer round-the-clock service.

    – Explore converting high use routes to either BRT or streetcar. Especially the 7x routes that don’t touch downtown.

    Others would be to determine whether trolley buses are more appropriate in inner-city routes, working w/ the cities to ensure that lane the bus travels in is built to a higher standard (concrete instead of asphalt) to provide better ride and to take the pounding of the buses.

  35. Another thing to consider for a major transit measure is to implement a smart card fare system. Those can be very fast and efficient to use, but cost a lot to install.

    Overlay the busiest frequent service lines (such as #72) with BRT-lite limited lines: low-floor articulated buses with wide doors that stop only at major destinations and transfer points. Put full MAX-type amenities (large shelters, ticket machines) at the stations, and have people pay on the platform and board through all doors. Without the need to create a dedicated right-of-way, this could be a cost-effective way to put in MAX-like service (lower frequency, lower capacity, lower reliability, but much lower capital cost) over much of Tri-Met’s service area.

    Trolley bus is a nice thought — maybe install electrical lines along the Tri-Met routes that require the most fuel, and begin converting bus service on those routes to trolley buses. Put the cost of installing overhead wire and the initial trolley bus purchase into the bond measure.

  36. What I like about BRT-lite is that it improves the bus system and makes it more visable to riders. I dont think it is anywhere near on par with MAX but rather is really the only way to improve the major and busiest transit routes in the city where there is absolutely no space for dedicated right of way.

  37. JW wrote: should it end at Milwaukie or continue to Portland Union Station? Obviously going into Union Station complicates it tremendously and requires dealing with the UP mainline but would it be worth it ridership-wise?

    Yes, running it north from Milwaukie would introduce a TON of complications. It could be mitigated if MAX were cancelled and a separate track dedicated for the DMU trains were put in its place, but even I would find that to be a significant downgrade which would offer little benefit to the region.

    Ridership wise, this corridor already is going to have limited ridership and I wouldn’t intend it to really provide service to Portland. Sherwood and Tualatin would maintain their 94/96 express routes to Portland (preferably, upgraded with “commuter” buses over what they have now.)

    Would a high capacity transit line via either the old Oregon Electric or Red Electric route be feasible?

    Well, the Sherwood-Milwaukie route would use the Red Electric route from Lake Oswego to Sherwood, and from Lake Oswego to Portland would be a Streetcar but still using the Red Electric route. (Historically, SP only ran “commute” trains to Oswego.) Red Electrics never ran across the Willamette River.

    As for the Oregon Electric route, see this:

    http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=105939017853465830090.0004548a6ed6a75b5acdf

    I think this route, using the old Oregon Electric route from Portland to Tualatin, is FAR superior than running MAX along Barbur Boulevard to Tigard. The blue placemarks indiciate possible station locations. However, it would require ripping up WES – but frankly putting light rail service every 15 minutes, seven days a week, is an improvement over a “weekday rush hour” service that runs every 30 minutes plus pathetic bus service to Tualatin.

  38. Douglas K. wrote: Put the cost of installing overhead wire and the initial trolley bus purchase into the bond measure.

    If there is anything about improving bus service I’d like to see in a bond measure, THIS IS IT.

    At least we would have the choice to pay up front for a trolleybus system; and if it failed TriMet can still provide every other upgrade using cheaper (to buy) diesel buses.

    Heck, we could do a four option vote:

    A. Retain diesel buses burning low-sulfur or biodiesel,
    B. Purchase CNG buses,
    C. Purchase Hybrid buses,
    D. Purchase trolleybuses and install overhead wire.

  39. What would you think about the following combo:

    A. DMU from Lake Oswego through Tualatin to Sherwood
    B. DMU from LO through Tigard to Beaverton as a WES extension
    C. MAX extension from Milwaukie to LO including pedestrian/cyclist pathway
    D. Pedestrian/cyclist pathway from LO to Johns Landing
    E. Keep the 35 bus from Oregon City all the way to the Portland transit mall.
    F. No streetcar to Lake Oswego

    Advantages:
    A. Cheaper than DMU extended beyond Lake Oswego to Milwaukie in addition to WSL streetcar and pathway.
    B. Faster from LO than streetcar to downtown Portland and connections.
    C. Should actually attract motorists since there is no direct road from Milwaukie and environs to LO and points west served by rail.
    D. We get to keep the 35 bus which will still be faster and more convenient for most riders than any proposed rail alternative between LO/West Linn/OC and downtown Portland.

    ??

  40. Connecting Lake Oswego to Portland via Milwaukie was studied by TriMet as part of the Willamette Shoreline alternatives analysis effort and TriMet concluded that it might be worthwhile, but served very different trips than the west side Streetcar alignment.

    And the point is that in 20 years the 35 will NOT be faster than rail because of the projected congestion on 43 (and there is no option to widen 43 due to the geography).

  41. Chris, has the streetcar system plan considered electric trolley buses as a potential alternate mode for these proposed routes. Personally I’m a huge streetcar fan but find ETBs to be a better fit for these neighborhoods. I know a big part of the decision to use streetcars is for their ability to attract development but are these established eastside neighborhoods really that fertile for redevelopment as is the case for the pearl, sowa and inner eastside? Do the neighbors really want lots more of Randy Rapaport’s neo-mid century condo buildings?

    Theres something to be said for the Willamette Shore Trolley right of way being owned, preserved and maintained for the last 20 years for future transit use. Its a great asset for the community and i think it is silly to now consider abandoning it solely for a bike path, afterall dont the deeds require rail service otherwise it reverts back to the adjacent landowners? I certainly have no problem with a bike path in addition to a streetcar line just not instead of. The streetcar appears politically popular in LO too with both the current mayor’s support and mayor-elect and plays into a large redevelopment plan on the riverfront near downtown.

    Would the LO streetcar use a different streetcar design or at least a higher seating capacity considering its longer distance and higher speeds? I would think rehabbed and accessible PCC cars would be ideal and actually better on this route than the typical Portland Streetcars which seem to be designed for downtown circulator use: slow speeds, hop on-hop off and primarily for standees.

    RA Fontes, the Lake Oswego-Milwaukie bridge is a single tracked rail bridge so I assume anything other than commuter rail would require a new bridge.

    Erik, I like that route you penciled out via Washington Square and Garden Home. Yeah I was referring to the portion of the O.E running thru the West Hills. Wasn’t there also another interurban line that also ran in roughly the same area… I thought it was the S.P red electrics though maybe not.

  42. The consensus among developers I have talked to is that trolley buses would not incent the kind of private sector investment we have seen with Streetcar.

    Having said that, I would love to see TriMet upgrade some of its frequent service lines to trolley buses for the reduction in emissions and more sustainable power source (assuming that they buy renewal power to run them).

  43. (assuming that they buy renewal power to run them).

    Huh. There’s a thought. Add to the big wish list: one or more wind farms in eastern Oregon. Build enough generating capacity to meet Tri-Met’s entire electrical needs on an annual basis. Tri-Met can sell the wind power to utilities and buy power back to meet its own needs.

    I wonder if it would be viable for Tri-Met to own its own biodiesel production facilities?

  44. Chris Smith Says:

    The consensus among developers I have talked to is that trolley buses would not incent the kind of private sector investment we have seen with Streetcar.

    That’s the sort of consensus that worries me, because I have no idea what it’s based on other than “consensus.”

    Have they focus-tested people on vehicles like this?

  45. Bob said: “A diversity of opinions, including skepticism of streetcars and the desire to include other modes has been discussed at these working group meetings.”

    There may have been discussions of other mode options in the working groups, but Mayor Elect Adams (and transportation planner Patrick Sweeny) have been unwilling to consider studying other less costly mode alternatives such as electric trolley busses. I have yet to hear, or even read about, Adams advancing electric trolley busses in a positive manner as both an economical alternative, or even a more eco friendly alternative to building a web of streetcars. The Adams oratory has been totally one-sided demonstrating his bias by even rigidly defending the expensive snail rail alternative against the criticism that he is promoting streetcars for streetcars sake. Furthermore, a few highly vocal streetcar advocates promoting streetcars for a specific corridor, such as Sandy Boulevard, does not comprise community support for streetcars or any form of public subsidy to operate them.

  46. [Moderator: Name typo corrected.]

    Maybe Chris knows the answer to this. How much of the insistence on streetcars over trolley buses has to do with the idea that the City has already committed to rail and that switching modes would be awkward and, perhaps, make them look foolish?

    I really don’t buy the argument that development won’t be as successful with trollies as streetcars, mostly because I doubt anyone has honestly proven the case.

  47. There may have been discussions of other mode options in the working groups

    There were indeed. Your original accusation was that the citizens groups were stacked-deck committees of the same usual suspects, which as I pointed out isn’t true because participation is open to anyone who wishes to attend and a diversity of opinion has been expressed.

    You can criticize elected officials and city staff all you like, but that doesn’t have anything to do with your original criticism… the streetcar system plan district working groups are quite open.

  48. I think trolley buses should very much be in consideration as a way to manage fuel costs and sustainability.

    But the Streetcar system plan is really an exercise in looking at the transit network and asking which links the network could be upgraded to Streetcar to promote:

    – Portland’s development goals (i.e., where we’re going to fit those next few hundred thousand people)
    – Neighborhood revitalization
    – Economic development

    Those corridors are going to have excellent transit one way or another. Choosing Streetcar is more about the land use/economic development strategy.

    As to whether or not trolley buses could have the same effect, why would Seattle, which already operates trolley buses build a Streetcar if they could get the same benefits from trolley buses?

    But by all means, let’s try a trolley bus on one of TriMet’s frequent service lines!

  49. Chris Smith Says:

    As to whether or not trolley buses could have the same effect, why would Seattle, which already operates trolley buses build a Streetcar if they could get the same benefits from trolley buses?

    Seattle also decided to extend the monorail and massively screwed up the potential for light rail in the tunnel. I dunno if I want to necessarily follow their lead.

  50. JW wrote: Erik, I like that route you penciled out via Washington Square and Garden Home. Yeah I was referring to the portion of the O.E running thru the West Hills. Wasn’t there also another interurban line that also ran in roughly the same area… I thought it was the S.P red electrics though maybe not.

    Yes, the Red Electric also ran to Beaverton, using what is now Barbur Boulevard, Bertha Boulevard, and then private ROW to Beaverton.

    There’s actually a City plan to turn that into a trail:

    http://www.portlandonline.com/PARKS/index.cfm?c=44562

    Since there’s already a MAX line to Beaverton I’m not sure what benefit there is other than serving Raleigh Hills and Hillsdale, but that seems better suited for enhanced bus/BRT service (since there are also express routes to Marquam Hill that use those roads.) Using the OE route would provide service to Tigard and Tualatin, along with Washington Square, Garden Home and Multnomah Village – plus would essentially run on the Red Electric Route from Burlingame north to downtown (since the OE route is now occupied by I-5).

  51. People differ on the prospect of the relative trip times of streetcar and bus. However, what I tried to point out in last night’s post was that total trip time for most riders would be slower with the streetcar than with the bus. This is because:

    A. TriMet says that 69% of all ridership occurs during off-peak hours. Rail transit on exclusive right-of-way goes about as fast during peak commute hours as during off hours. The 35’s fastest trips are currently up to 1/3rd quicker than its slowest trips and most are faster than the streetcar projections. Even if Metro’s forecasts of much slower future peak route 35 trips are true, there’s little reason to believe that off peak trips will be much slower than now, particularly if we ever get the long promised frequent service status. Remember, route 35 trip times have been flat for many years.

    B. We learned from Bob R.’s Dec 17, 2007 post that far more riders board the 35 south of downtown LO than in it, and that the majority debus on the transit mall north of PSU. With the single exception of the Lake Oswego TC, the streetcar doesn’t serve the 35’s most heavily used stops. If the streetcar replaces the bus, most riders will find themselves having to make one or even two time wasting transfers where none are required now.

    C. Relative to the 35 or Milwaukie MAX, time is lost for most riders as the streetcar travels between the mall and its 10th/11th Street alignment. For those corresponding with other lines, this time can usually be absorbed while transferring. If the connection were tight with the 35 or MAX, it would be missed with the streetcar, and the time lost significant.

    Yes, Chris, it’s precisely because different trips are served by Milwaukie MAX and the 35 that we’d be able to keep the bus. But in terms of downtown LO and the Portland transit mall, there’s overlap and riders would have a choice, one we’d not have with the streetcar.

    JW, you’re right that a Milwaukie MAX extension would probably mean a new bridge. Metro’s preliminary ballpark for the entire extension was $212 million, including three stations on the eastside just a few inches from each other. The more thoroughly studied estimate for the streetcar was up to $215.7 million, including $58.7 million for the pathway. Metro’s estimate for the trail dropped to $7.4 million without the streetcar. Very roughly 1/3rd of the WSL ROW is in easements and I don’t know if any compensation to the property owners involved was included in Metro’s pathway estimates.

    A Milwaukie to westside rail connection is a no-brainer, especially considering that there is no direct high-speed road connection. The question is what type of rail service.

    If we build the streetcar extension, it would be awfully hard to justify a MAX extension as opposed to DMU from Milwaukie using the existing P&W. A Milwaukie DMU extension would still cost a lot of money –Erik Halstead suggests at least $20 million for bridge upgrades alone– and we wouldn’t have the high frequency, all day, single seat service offered by a MAX extension.

    Since a WSL ROW streetcar would offer inferior service to most riders compared with the combination of a Milwaukie MAX extension and route 35 bus retention, using at least part of the ROW for a pathway could be a real benefit and not a waste of a resource purchased for rail transit. While transit users and motorists can easily travel between LO and Johns Landing, there is no safe, direct, and reasonably level way for cyclists and pedestrians to do so. Metro projections suggest that a pathway would be far and away the most cost effective transportation project that we could build in the corridor, and that doesn’t even begin to include recreational value.

    The bottom line remains that the region would be much better and less expensively served by the package outlined in the previous post than by a realistic streetcar based combination.

    Finally, I truly believe that diesel (including diesel hybrid) buses are about to join the dodo. There is just too much happening in alternative propulsion research, especially in electricity based systems. The Tesla roadster, with its 200+ mile range and incredible acceleration, is being delivered today. The Shanghai supercapacitor based buses may not yet have been 100% successful, but could still point the way to the future of electric transit vehicles. Stay tuned.

  52. [Moderator: Name of mode corrected to avoid confusion.]

    Seattle ultimately decided not to extend the [monorail] after years of back-and-forth between citizens (who kept voting for it) and the city government (which did everything they could to thwart it). The voters finally killed it when the project as designed was presented to them with a truly preposterous price tag. (Going from memory here: I think it involved a $2 billion dollar bond issue that would have taken so long to repay that if would have run up an extra $7 billion in total interest.)

    I’m not sure how Seattle “screwed up” the potential for light rail in the tunnel, though. The tracks are in place and it’s ready to start running next year. The tunnel will carry both buses and rail. Where’s the problem?

    On the more specific question as to whether trolley buses offer the development/revitalization benefits of a streetcar, that’s not too hard to test. Just look at Seattle’s trolley bus corridors and its diesel bus corridors. See if there’s a consistent pattern of greater development or investment along trolley bus lines.

    I like the idea of trolley buses as a way of helping insulate Tri-Met from higher fuel prices. Get enough of the system running on electricity, and gradually turn the rest of the fleet to plug-in hybrids running on biodiesel and/or natural gas, and the system could become virtually immune to price shocks from oil.

    Add to the wish list for the Big Bond Measure: a large order of plug-in hybrid biofuel buses.

  53. Chris Smith wrote: The consensus among developers I have talked to is that trolley buses would not incent the kind of private sector investment we have seen with Streetcar.

    I thought Transit was to move people, and that a Democratic government (the party, not the basis of government) was to work for the people. If the developers are going to complain about whether a Streetcar or a Trolleybus goes next to their development, I have only one response:

    Pay up (for a Streetcar) or Shut up.

    It was the developers who paid for the Streetcar lines in the early 1900s, not government, to encourage the sales of their properties. So why should I be forced to subsidize developers who want their transit needs placed over mine?

    As to whether or not trolley buses could have the same effect, why would Seattle, which already operates trolley buses build a Streetcar if they could get the same benefits from trolley buses?

    Is this suggesting that the “development potential” of a Streetcar versus other modes of transport is nothing more than a myth? Seattle actually clamored in the 1970s to rebuild their trolleybus system, and just in the last few years completely renewed the fleet between a mix of rebuilt Breda articulated buses and brand new Gillig Phantom shells with electric equipment from older, retired buses.

    Jeff F. wrote: Seattle also decided to extend the monorail and massively screwed up the potential for light rail in the tunnel.

    How? LINK is supposed to begin operating in the tunnel next year, and test runs have already started… And the monorail extension was eventually voted against because of bad cost estimates – the first two monorail votes didn’t even come with a price tag.

  54. Jeff F. wrote: I really don’t buy the argument that development won’t be as successful with trollies as streetcars, mostly because I doubt anyone has honestly proven the case.

    Smartest thing said today, hands down.

  55. and massively screwed up the potential for light rail in the tunnel.

    I think this may be referring to the fact that when the Seattle tunnel was first constructed, rails were put in place for a future line. However, there were problems with the potential for stray currents and foundation depth, and as I recall also issues for platform heights for newer low-floor trains without stairs.

    As a consequence of some mix of those factors, the original rails had to be removed, the grade lowered, the foundations replaced, and new rails put in — which of course added delay to the project and increased costs.

  56. Erik Halstead:

    How? LINK is supposed to begin operating in the tunnel next year, and test runs have already started… And the monorail extension was eventually voted against because of bad cost estimates – the first two monorail votes didn’t even come with a price tag.

    Ah, but this is the second time around for the tunnel and rail. There were tracks laid in there when the tunnel was originally built in the late 80s. The light rail project was delayed so long that the tracks eventually became obsolete, because they were not designed for low-floor access to platforms. The whole system of tracks had to be replaced for the current configuration.

  57. as i understand belmont is likely to get streetcar over hawthorne, so maybe hawthorne is the line that electric trolley buses make sense on and another etb line on division street could share a lot of the overhead into downtown. presumably a belmont streetcar would use mlk/grand to burnside, go over the burnside bridge to access downtown and continue along as the proposed burnside streetcar to 23rd. this would also clear up the hawthorne bridge for trolley bus lines.

    i believe in the streetcar as a development tool particularly being a pearl resident. i just question how much development potential there is in the established eastside neighborhoods except for a few parcels for small infill projects. i think eastside loop streetcar and sowa extension make tremendous sense because there is huge development potential. lake oswego is not about development other than in the downtown lake oswego waterfront but really is because there is an existing preserved right of way perfectly suited to a smaller rail operation like the streetcar. lake oswego would never have been mentioned as a potential route had there not been this great asset already in place.

  58. When they dug the tunnel, Light Rail was an afterthought, but an advisory referendum changed everything, and those rails became a last-minute addition, and to save money, the contractor was allowed to not properly insulate the rails. Now the concern over stray current led to the trains. Also, they were going by industry standards in those days, and low-floor LRVs and Buses were a decade off. Metro was a late-adopter of Low Floor Buses.

    Also, trolleybuses can be diverted, as there are considerations of having the 7’s Upper Ranier Beach/Skyway portion become part of a diesel route when LINK goes on-line, but they will probably keep the wire there, just in case. Over the past nearly 3 decades the 7 has been back under wire, it has had a variety of turnbacks. When it was 2 routes, one that did a short-turn at Columbia City, there was a turning wire at Ranier and Graham St, and when the 9 was a trolleybus, it turned back at Ranier and Rose St, but when all Ranier Ave trolley operations were consolidated at Ranier Beach’s current unofficial hub(Henderson St), those turnback wires stayed.

    They also are planning to change the 14 from the current Mt. Baker terminus to the bus hub at Mt. Baker Station, will only be less than a mile of new wire.

    Now there is one advantage that Diesels have over trolleybuses, is that they can be rerouted because of snow, but the current situation with Seattle, because of geography, snowstorms don’t get that severe. The worst one I remember, the Ice Storm of 96, was one of the few times, Metro threw in the towel. Much of the fleet is 60ft buses, and that is even more so now, and they were unable to move under all that snow. Although in that case, it did not discriminate between diesel or electric. Although for the most part, the Trolleys seem to have automatic sanders, for extra traction.

  59. The consensus among developers I have talked to is that trolley buses would not incent the kind of private sector investment we have seen with Streetcar.

    How about we pull a San Diego, and charge real estate developers a per mile cost for roads, transit, et al? Is it so bad to connect an international border with Mexico to LRT, or an interstate border for a more PDX matter?

  60. The project list includes 4.5 miles of new freeway, built in a tunnel. The city of South Pasadena is suing the equivalent of Metro in LA for not even pretending to follow environmental laws on the thing…

    BTW, I did some research on this, and that’s an LA-Metro project. The city of Los Angeles is sticking by their no new freeways stance.

    Pasadena, they’re a different place. They’re LA County, but that’s like being in Multnomah County but outside Portland.

    So, LA isn’t building any new freeways. Not even I-105 to I-5. South Pasadena and I-710, that’s a separate city.

  61. Obviously if the tunnel is in the city of South Pasadena limits, then it isn’t in Los Angeles city limits…

    But South Pasadena doesn’t want it. LA apparently doesn’t want new freeways either, and has successfully stopped theirs. So why hasn’t this project died already?

  62. Please bring back Electric Bus Trolley to Portland at highest recommendation. If I could be appreciating with Electric Trolley buses like Seattle so it operates on TRIMET’s selected routes. I would like to see Electric Trolley Bus here in Portland possibilities. Please release sharing addresses to public recommendations. Thank you for helping feedback! smile.

  63. So…again, back to the topic. What would advocacy for a Quality of Life bill look like? (By the way, Milwaukee also passed a referendum funding parks and transit this November, among other things) Should Tri-Met be the driving force? How can our chatter on this board evolve into a coherent plan that we could call our local politicians and officials to encourage having them sponsor something? At what level would this be passed; Metro, State? If Bill Sizemore has the capacity to get all of his crazy measures on the ballot, I’m sure grassroots organizing with everyone from CLF, BTA, Trimet, et al could produce a formidable big time bill that would have to be taken seriously.

Leave a Reply to david Cancel reply

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