Pretty or Cheap?


Under the title “Can We Afford Pretty?” the Sunday O delves into whether the Columbia River Crossing design will be aspirational or prosaic.

Of course, Pearson Air Park gets thrown into the mix as well, with the height limits it may impose on any replacement bridge.

I still wonder if we can afford it at all…


39 responses to “Pretty or Cheap?”

  1. There is an easy way to cut the cost by 1/2 to 2/3 based on the claim that there are three, approx. equal cost, components:
    1. Trim the interchange rebuild component to only those that are currently overloaded.

    2. Get rid of the component that has no useful transportation function – light rail. It just costs too much & does too little.

  2. From The Oregonian: “It will be a postcard,” Adams says, as the gateway to the Columbia and Snake rivers.

    Hmmm…

    I thought the Astoria-Megler Bridge (US 101) was the “gateway” to the Columbia and Snake Rivers. Followed by the Lewis & Clark Bridge (SR 433).

    It should also be noted that there are no public parks on Hayden Island but specifically on the north side of the island with a view of the bridge, so unfortunately for Portlanders the only view will be from a Sam Adams Postcard, unless one is fortunate enough to avail themselves of a boat (a small minority of Portlanders) or take the trek over to Vancouver.

    Unless, of course, Sam Adams has some plan to “revitalize” Hayden Island, which means to evict the hard working Portland residents in the manufactured home park that lies just west of I-5, and replace affordable housing with expensive riverfront housing (but there’ll be a bike path so those folks can ride their bike to the Vancouver Farmer’s Market instead of to the island’s Safeway store whose distribution trucks don’t require use of the Columbia River Crossing.)

  3. light rail. It just costs too much & does too little.

    I just love sound-bite sloganeering.

    I’ve always wondered why folks of a more libertarian bent find that giving people choice, i.e., the ability to get somewhere by some mode other than using a private automobile, is so objectionable. Doesn’t liberty involve having choices? Wouldn’t a government that only allowed one really practical choice for mode along a significant corridor be something of a nanny state?

  4. The new I5 bridge is suppose to relieve congestion, or so it is said. How can this be possible when you have 3 lanes going north and south for a while. OR side, down by the I5 & I405 it goes to two lanes.

    North of Vancouver, same thing. A new bridge, with or without light rail is not going to solve the congestion.

    Please stop and think. When the I205 was built, it did relieve congestion for awhile, but this whole area has grown since then.

    Has any study been done on traffic, that is really going either north or south, from our northern border/southern border going to each border area? I doubt it, or else the local political idiots don’t want to know this.

    We need another route, like the I205 bypass, around the west side of Vancouver/Portland area, with limited access/entrance, from north of Vancouver down to at least Wilsonville.

    And this should be at least 6 lanes each way, with two dedicated lanes for complete through traffic. Really, think about it, this area will continue to grow, and having 3 lanes through downtown Portland/Vancouver is not going to work. And there is no way (because of cost) to expand or widen I5.

    But the local political scene, both Portland and Vancouver is against this for one reason, money in their pockets, not to help us taxpayers. So we taxpayers will end up getting screwed with a new I5 bridge that goes nowhere to relieve the congestion.

  5. Strip the bike lanes, light rail, about half of the proposed automobile lanes from the project, and the removal of the existing bridge from the project. The cost savings should be enough to pay for “”pretty” for a six or seven lane bridge. And maybe the project will be cheap enough to pay for the local funding component entirely with tolls.

    The states of Oregon and Washington can donate the existing bridge spans to Tri-Met to put light rail on (as well as bike lanes and some local traffic automobile lanes if there’s room.) Build light rail as a separate project, with the value of the “donated” bridge used to leverage matching federal funds for rail construction, and tolls on arterial traffic to pay the rest. It can come from a completely different pot of money and be treated as a separate project.

  6. Chris Smith Says:
    I’ve always wondered why folks of a more ibertarian bent find that giving people choice, i.e., the ability to get somewhere by some mode other than using a private automobile, is so objectionable.
    ME: It is a matter of who pays. Autos/trucks pay almost all of their costs, transit users rely on others to pay almost all of their costs.

    Chris Smith Says:
    Doesn’t liberty involve having choices?
    ME:
    Liberty is all about open markets and free choices. That is not what you are asking for – you are asking for the government to take money from non transit users and give it to transit users. Many of which are rich downtown lawyers and bureaucrats. Can’t they afford to pay their own full cost, like Portland’s car & truck drivers do?

    Chris Smith Says:
    Wouldn’t a government that only allowed one really practical choice for mode along a significant corridor be something of a nanny state?
    ME:
    * why does the government outlay jitneys?
    * why does the government forbid more taxi companies?

    Chris, you know it isn’t about choices — its about favoring politically connected operations. And funneling public money to favored developers and transit modes that just happen to donate a lot of money to local politicians

  7. Looking especially at the safety statistics, you can see that the biggest part needing replacement isn’t the bridge, it’s the interchanges, especially those on either side of the bridge.

    Fix these and many of the arguments for replacing the bridge for safety’s sake would be moot.

    Now, if you want to reduce traffic congestions, get as much of people as possible onto Light Rail and Buses, which would be the exclusive users of a supplemental bridge with LRT, Transit lanes, and a world-class bike/ped path.

    You then also renovate the BNSF span, moving the swing span and main channel to line up with the Interstate bridge’s hump. Move as much freight to rail, and the number of trucks on the Interstate bridge would be reduced dramatically.

    At this point, you would realize that the current number of lanes is sufficient, and you would structurally reinforce the current bridge, keeping it safely in working order for many decades to come.

  8. Politically, I think it would be easier to build a new freeway bridge that can pay for itself through tolls than to build a dedicated transit bridge. It’s probably a lot easier (and cheaper) to recycle an existing bridge for light rail.

    Besides, while I’m no fan of freeway projects, I do think the lanes on the current bridge are too narrow, and I’m troubled by the lack of a shoulder. Although the currently proposed project is overkill and the process was clearly rigged to avoid considering reasonable alternatives, there is a plausible argument for a better freeway bridge than the one that’s in place right now.

  9. Chris Smith Says: So if the market does not produce a choice, I’m not free to exercise that choice? Not my idea of liberty.
    ME:
    The constitution guarantee your right to print whatever you want. It DOSE NOT provide for public financing for YOUR printing press.

    The constitution guarantees your right to free speech. It DOES NOT expect others to pay for your radio station, TV station, megaphone or soapbox.

    The constitution guarantees your right to bear arms. It DOES NOT require others to buy you a gun.

    The constitution guarantees your right to petetion the government. It DOES NOT pay for your paper.

    Sorry that your idea of liberty expects others to give you a 80% subsidized ride, it does not appear to be supported by the constitution.

    If the free market does not produce a choice that you want, why not go out and create that choice for others to share and PURCHASE from you? (Before you sink your personal fortune into adult transit toys, you might want to look at the history of people paying around $10 for a rail trip downtown, when they can do it for a couple of dollars in their car. Obviously you would want to give free/discounted rides to those unable to drive and unable to pay the full price.)

  10. The constitution guarantees your right to free speech. It DOES NOT expect others to pay for your radio station, TV station, megaphone or soapbox.

    Or right to shift identities and rant at people in a derisive tone on a blog that’s not your own, for that matter, just as an example.

  11. Sorry that your idea of liberty expects others to give you a 80% subsidized ride, it does not appear to be supported by the constitution.

    I know you weren’t addressing me specifically, but from what I understand of the Constitution, it gives us a democratically-elected representative government, through which we the people may address how the government acts to promote the general welfare.

    If you want to oppose a specific expenditure, that’s certainly your right, but the ability of the government, in general terms, to spend funds for the common good, as determined by representatives, isn’t in widespread dispute, is it?

  12. “Or right to shift identities and rant at people in a derisive tone on a blog that’s not your own, for that matter, just as an example.”

    Of course.
    I always get a kick out of people who call a talk show and demand their right to speak. No, that is not how it works.

    Thanks for providing this forum.

  13. just build a new light rail and pedestrian/bicycle bridge and forget building a new mega deluxe highway bridge.

    its wasteful to spend all that money on a new highway bridge when theres two perfectly good highway bridges there now.

  14. Whether it’s pretty or not, can we really afford to build another freeway bridge?

    In the Portland area, 14 freeway lanes and two railroad tracks cross the Columbia River. Maybe we need more railroad tracks instead of freeway lanes.

    Studies have shown that the local track infrastructure, including the ancient rail bridge that carries both freight and Amtrak traffic, is over-stressed today and cannot handle future modern intercity and commuter passenger service.

    Why then, when trains are three times as energy-efficient and produce fewer greenhouse gases as cars and trucks, aren’t we planning to improve the railroad infrastructure instead of pouring over $4 billion into the freeway system?

    Instead of a 5-mile long freeway project we should consider a 4-mile long passenger rail bypass around the severely congested Vancouver and North Portland junctions. Removing Amtrak from these junctions would expedite freight train movements, improve Amtrak’s schedule reliability while allowing it to add more trains. It would also provide the infrastructure for commuter rail service between Vancouver and Union station which could greatly relieve peak hour congestion on the freeway.

    The bypass would include a high-level rail bridge immediately downstream from the existing railroad bridge, out of the airspace of Pearson Field, which could actually become a monument to how Portland solves its transportation problems in the 21st century.

  15. Retrofiting the existing bridges, removing non-standard on/off ramps, providing local access via an arterial bridge that includes transit and non-motorized options would be the most fitting memorial to what this city and region stand for…sustainability, respect for the environment and energy independence.

  16. “I’ve always wondered why folks of a more libertarian bent find that giving people choice is so objectionable”
    It’s amazing how rail transit advocates have no ability to grasp the most basic and fundamental reasons why there are those who find it not worth the cost. No matter how many times it is clearly explained to them.
    You toss that “choice” canard out every time.
    As if “choice” is good no matter what.
    That is so irrational it’s beyond reason.
    I advocate limousine and helicopter transit so commuters have more choices.
    So why would anyone oppose these choices?
    I would prefer to give more people the choice to use transit if it were efficient and serving more people and neighborhoods.
    Unfortunately the obscene cost of light rail makes it impossible to serve the many with better bus service. I would also prefer to give commuters and commerce the choice to get where they need to be in a more timely matter.
    Unfortunately with the irrational emphasis on rail transit while neglecting our roads, freeways, interchanges and intersections we are unable to adapt and accommodate the needs of growth.

  17. The EIS done for this project demonstrated that it will not cure congestion, and that it would actually make the inbound morning commute WORSE. That’s right, our investment of billions of highway dollars will make inbound traffic worse, due to the attracted traffic and downstream bottleneck. The project would provide some relief for outbound evening traffic, at least temporarily.

    While some of the posts here are made based on emotion and gut feel, a thorough review of the facts and outcomes reveals that suggestions like Lenny’s and Jim H’s are pretty damn logical. Fix the bridges we have, add road capacity in other places where we get more bang for the buck, and upgrade alternatives (rail, transit, ped, bike).

  18. Unit: The problems around the I-5/I-405 interchange could be addressed with a series of small changes. Traffic might not become free-flowing entirely, but it would flow better. Not necessarily allowing more vehicles, but better conditions for about the same number.

    These improvements would include merging the Going and Alberta on-ramps, building out a Rose Quarter to I-84 east ramp (there’s still a ramp stub on the I-5 south ramp where one was planned), and widening a few underpasses (Williams at Broadway and Weidler.)

    I do think a surface (aka non-freeway) route from US-30 to Portland Rd to Mill Plain Blvd is the best option, with removing the Jantzen Beach interchange (or at least NB on and SB off), but SR-14 to I-5 is a tricky one. Either traffic has to be routed through Downtown Vancouver, traffic lights from SR-14 to I-5 would have to be added (which would wreak havoc on SR-14, I-5, and Downtown Vancouver), tunnels would have to be built and the rail berm would have to be moved, or you’d have to violate Pearson’s air rights.

    There is no easy solution to the SR-14 interchange problem short of rebuilding the bridge.

  19. To get their socialist way from their bully pulpits, dictator elect Adams and the Republic of Metro want the crossing be another pretty monument increasing the costs, and are willing to sacrifice not only Vancouver’s Pearson Air Field where approximately 70 planes use the runway on a daily basis, but also sacrifice the functionality of the freeway component by reducing the number of lanes while charging motorists socially engineered tolls to be applied to the local share for all transport modes. Many people who live in Clark County and work in Oregon have moved there due to the high costs of living in Portland, specifically the excessive taxes, and because of what some of them call practically a communist government in Portland and Oregon (I usually correct them and say “socialistic government”). At the same time, Adams and Metro support spending millions of dollars (an official price tag has been hidden from the public) for bicycle infrastructure so a respectively small number, maybe 200, 300 or possibly even 400 freeloading pedal pushers can daily cross the river. In addition they support subsidizing the continuing operations of transit thereby substantially increasing the ongoing public debt for generations to come. How hypocritical when calling to close Pearson and charge tolls only to motorists. Any user charges must be mode specific, but only if the users of all modes are financially contributing with user fees and only to pay the for the infrastructure costs (and operational costs for transit) for the mode being used. Alternative modes of transport need to be financially self-sustainable with the users paying the price tag for specialized infrastructure.

    As for the design of the bridge, the radical cable strayed idea is anything but attractive. In fact it is down right ugly and possibly maintenance intensive as compared to other options. My suggestion is to use a simple modified Conde McCullough design where the tallest arch is on the Oregon side with the arches getting smaller and smaller until the bridge is basically flat on the North end. Portions of the arches under the bridge may also work with such a design. The “transit in a box” concept should also be incorporated whereby Max is under the highway deck. This should not only save taxpayer dollars, but also reduce the footprint of bridge.

  20. Chris Smith wrote: I’ve always wondered why folks of a more libertarian bent find that giving people choice, i.e., the ability to get somewhere by some mode other than using a private automobile, is so objectionable. Doesn’t liberty involve having choices? Wouldn’t a government that only allowed one really practical choice for mode along a significant corridor be something of a nanny state?

    Why is this even a question?

    If you want to get from downtown Portland to Vancouver without a private automobile, that option already exists.

    Let’s see:

    http://www.c-tran.com/

    http://www.c-tran.com/portland-lightrail-max.html

    C-TRAN Express Service to Portland

    C-TRAN offers Clark County residents convenient Express service to Rose Quarter, Lloyd District, the downtown Portland Transit Mall, and Marquam Hill. Express service is available from all major park and ride and transit center locations, weekdays only, except the 105 I-5 Express which provides ALL DAY service.

    It seems that the desired “choice” is not for a non-automobile option (which already exists), but for a specific light rail option. And frankly if we are to start up the debate about “choices”, then where is my improved TriMet service on the line 12, with brand new BRT styled DE60LF buses and “Streetcar-Style” bus stops, Transit Tracker displays at 80% of stops, so on and so forth? Don’t I deserve the “choice” of quality transit too?

    Getting back to the original point of this thread, “pretty or cheap” – the question isn’t whether or not to include light rail, it’s the question of bridge design. Are we really entitled to the “choice” of having a pretty bridge or not, or simply the function of having a bridge? If we’re entitled to “prettiness”, then I’d like I-5 in my neighborhood capped with a large neighborhood park (given the lack of City of Portland parks in my part of Portland)…along with a Streetscaping project for Barbur Boulevard, and I want the I-5/99W overpass (both of them, in fact) rebuilt with “prettiness” factors in mind.

  21. If Terry wanted to be taken seriously, he wouldn’t start his posts with stuff like “To get their socialist way from their bully pulpits, dictator elect Adams and the Republic of Metro…”

  22. C-Tran offers nothing to North/Northeast Portland along the I-5 corridor from Salmon Creek or 99th P&R. All transit service is subject to delays and requires transfers to MAX at Delta Park/Vanport.
    In the short term, adding a limited line along I-5 with HOV lanes in Clark county to the bridge would make the transit option better at little cost. Longer term its hard to seriously argue against a one mile extension of an exising light rail line to downtown Vancouver, one mile north.
    Many commuters on I-5 do NOT want to be there, but they simply have no choice.

  23. “Many commuters on I-5 do NOT want to be there, but they simply have no choice.”

    And adding light rail won’t provide any improvement for where most of them need to go.
    A small fraction may choose the rail ride while everyone else would be left dealing with the very planned and predicably worsening congestion.

  24. Lenny Anderson wrote: C-Tran offers nothing to North/Northeast Portland along the I-5 corridor from Salmon Creek or 99th P&R.

    TriMet 6-MLK transfers to multiple C-Tran services at both the Vanport Park & Ride as well as Hayden Island. That provides service to North/Northeast Portland.

    All transit service is subject to delays and requires transfers to MAX at Delta Park/Vanport.

    Not the express routes like the 105, they run into downtown Portland. No transfer required.

    Longer term its hard to seriously argue against a one mile extension of an exising light rail line to downtown Vancouver, one mile north.

    When Oregon has to pay for a one billion dollar project that provides virtually zero benefit?

    When I pay taxes to TriMet so I can subsidize Clark County residents while TriMet claims it can’t invest in quality bus service – service that I have paid for for years?

    It’s easy to argue against a MAX extension. If Vancouver wants it, Vancouver can pay for it – AND pay a share of the Yellow Line operating cost as well (since Vancouver residents do not pay the costs that I do pay for in my share of property tax revenue that goes to TriMet).

    At least with the highway portion of the cost, there is clearly defined responsibilities for who pays what and with what dollars, plus a federal share. With MAX – I continue to subsidize Vancouver residents through the decrease in quality for my own transit service — older buses, lack of quality bus stops, lack of amenities, unreliable service, etc.

    Many commuters on I-5 do NOT want to be there, but they simply have no choice.

    I suggest that many of those commuters start by clicking here:

    http://www.c-tran.com/PassengerServiceandTransitCenter.html

    And then here:

    http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=9700+NE+7th+Avenue,+Vancouver,+WA+98665&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=83.876672,82.792969&ie=UTF8&z=16&iwloc=addr

    And then here:

    http://www.c-tran.com/routes/199route/index.html

    They have options. They choose not to avail themselves of the options. That does not constitute a reason why I should get poor quality bus service to subsidize a train for Vancouver residents because they are unwilling to ride a bus. If they want the train, they can pay for it.

  25. My gosh, what is wrong with improving service in the already existing rail corridor across the Columbia—and adding the other transportation services that, as a community, we all want?

    This would be an essential component, anyway, if we seek to have a respectable (i.e. high speed) passenger rail connection between Seattle and Portland–plus better rail freight transit in the region. If we don’t plan for more rail freight aren’t we going to have worse truck-auto collisions on the increasingly crowded interstate system? Truck-auto collisions take 24,000 lives per year–and tend to get worse when people drive small cars.

    Last time I checked the existing interstate bridge hadn’t suffered any observable seismic damage—-and our worst quakes in the Portland area have been 6.7. Go to Seattle if you want worse earthquakes to worry about—at least according to my US Geological Survey quake hazards map. And since it sits upon nine, squat, ugly but rather huge piers I’m not worried about taking a swim anytime soon, like when the “Big One” hits, which our newly minted armchair geologists seem to fear. (Note: these happen every three hundred to EIGHT hundred years!)

    We need a new interstate bridge in the rail corridor.

  26. C-Tran has express service down the I-5 corridor to Downtown Portland, but not to the MAX Yellow Line and hence to many jobs in N/NE Portland. The 44 Limited and 4 Fourth Plain serve the Fourth Plain corridor…thank you very much, but there is no service due north on or along I-5.
    All C-Tran southbound buses are subject to traffic delays, there is only the northbound HOV lane. At least now the fare situation is better.
    Reducing motor vehicle traffic thru N/NE Portland by offering faster, more reliable and more attractive transit to residents on both sides of the river is a benefit to residents and to those needing to move freight in the I-5 corridor.
    TriMet property tax is for the westside MAX line.
    I just noticed that the 94 Sherwood Express has 10 arrivals in Downtown Portland between 7 and 8am or every six minutes. Thats more than the Yellow MAX line. What’s your beef, Erik?

  27. Erik Halstead Says:

    It’s easy to argue against a MAX extension. If Vancouver wants it, Vancouver can pay for it – AND pay a share of the Yellow Line operating cost as well (since Vancouver residents do not pay the costs that I do pay for in my share of property tax revenue that goes to TriMet).

    When TriMet had bus service into Vancouver, it was subsidized by C-TRAN. When the subsidy went away, so did the service. I seriously doubt TriMet would build light rail across the river without requiring C-TRAN to pay a share of the operating cost. Of course, it would have to be locked in forever, unlike the bus, because it would be more or less impossible to stop service.

  28. A couple of thoughts. The question of affording beauty in our transportation system whether road, bike, ped, bus, rail, river, or trail has been buried for too long by engineers and highway planners who have been taking the cheaper is better cool-aide. In bed with them are cranky politicians who rant about waste in government spending as a way to election. Lets stop beating this tired and selfish drum. In our personal selection of a house, car, clothing restaurant, or any other financial decision, budget is always a factor but rarely the only factor in our decision. When we build public buildings, parks, roads, and bridges we are building something for you and me and everyone to enjoy and usually the life of the improvement is 50 to 100 years – or more. For that reason these structures should be built to a higher standard and should be both functional, aspirational, and ultimately loveable. That is the point in spending serious resources on planning, public involvement, environmental analysis, and design quality.

    The location of the Columbia crossing makes it particularly important to build it well. There are parks at both ends, it joins two cities, it links two states. It is seen from the water, from the river banks, from the passengers crossing over, from the air, and from bikes and pedestrians who will stop on the span to enjoy the vistas east and west. The bridge needs to be a part of this setting in a way that is exciting to cross and beautiful to behold.

    As for the current state of the bridge design, the financial bloat is in the criteria set for the interchanges and roadway. It has too many driving lanes – 12 expandable to 16 including shoulders. The impact on I-5 as it moves through the city is conveniently ignored. Hayden Island, a neighborhood that might someday have a population of 10,000, is served by a massive interchange. The interchanges are designed for high speeds when traffic at rush hour will rarely exceed 40 mph. All of this adds up to a lot of destructive and wasteful expense and damages the environment locally and regionally by encouraging time and energy wasteful long distance commuting. And if we do it cheap it will be a blight on the landscape – just another rape and pillage highway we will wish we had not built.

  29. Lenny Anderson wrote: C-Tran has express service down the I-5 corridor to Downtown Portland, but not to the MAX Yellow Line and hence to many jobs in N/NE Portland.

    And what is stopping C-Tran from implementing such service? If there is demand, certainly it can be proposed without spending $4 billion. C-Tran already provides service to Marquam Hill and the Lloyd District, so there’s no reason (other than demand) that they couldn’t start a Rivergate express run.

    All C-Tran southbound buses are subject to traffic delays

    At least they could exit on Interstate Avenue (if needed) and get around traffic.

    If we want to get into a bus vs. MAX debate, how was the Steel Bridge the last two mornings?

    Reducing motor vehicle traffic thru N/NE Portland by offering faster, more reliable and more attractive transit to residents on both sides of the river is a benefit to residents and to those needing to move freight in the I-5 corridor.

    And providing better bus service would offer faster, more reliable, and more attractive transit to residents on both sides of the river. C-Tran is clearly working MUCH HARDER than TriMet in accomplishing this.

    (I like this website: http://www.c-tran.com/sustainability.html)

    I just noticed that the 94 Sherwood Express has 10 arrivals in Downtown Portland between 7 and 8am or every six minutes. Thats more than the Yellow MAX line. What’s your beef, Erik?

    Nice “personally directed remark” there.

    What’s my beef?

    Let’s see. I take transit “door to door”.

    If I want to ride the 94 bus, I’d have to drive. That’s right, ANOTHER single occupant motor vehicle on the roads.

    That means I ride the 12 bus. A lowly so-called “frequent service” bus line that is frequently late, frequently operates with non-low floor equipment, has few improved stops, and is frequently delayed because of problems that occur at a few chokepoints on the 12B line, but more frequently EAST of downtown Portland.

    I can stand at a 12 bus stop and see three 94s go by, often with just a handful of riders, before a crowded 12 shows up.

    The 94 has vastly higher operating costs (because it operates 60% of the time empty) than the 12.

    The 94 relies on expensive, subsidized parking lots to build ridership. The 12 line provides door-to-door service.

    Now, admittedly in the afternoon I will sometimes take the 94 bus to Barbur Blvd. TC, but then I have to transfer to the 12 for the final leg. Or, if Transit Tracker shows me that the 12 buses are running way off schedule (happens a LOT!), I’ll call my wife to drive our car and pick me up (another vehicle on the road).

    But, I’m sure that Mr. Anderson will find my attempts to use, and obtain, high quality transit services of no concern to him because I’m just a bus rider who rides a non-express bus route, and thus I am not a “high value” customer, and that funds that I drop in the farebox (OK, I have an annual pass, so funds my employer pays directly to TriMet) should be used not to improve my service but to subsidize someone else’s train – especially someone who pays very little (if anything) to TriMet.

  30. Jeff F. wrote: When TriMet had bus service into Vancouver, it was subsidized by C-TRAN. When the subsidy went away, so did the service.

    Actually, service increased.

    TriMet had one route – the 5-Interstate – going into Vancouver. It was replaced for a short period with the 6-MLK Jr. Blvd. route, before C-Tran decided to end the agreement and start running its own buses.

    C-Tran today runs the 4-Fourth Plain on what TriMet would call a “frequent service” schedule to Hayden Island and to Vanport/Delta Park (this actually provides transit service to the Expo Center which was very difficult to do with either the TriMet 5 or 6 lines.)

    The 5 line was never “frequent service”, it was at least 20 minute headways if not longer.

    There are also three limited runs, 41-Camas/Washougal, 44-Fourth Plain Limited, and 47-Battle Ground, that also serve Vanport/Delta Park.

    The lack of bus service from Vanport/Delta Park to Rivergate industrial areas (or to Delta Park itself) is a major flaw in TriMet’s route strategy and likely a major factor as to why transit ridership in this area will not reach its full potential. It is ridiculous that TriMet would not have re-routed the 16 to create a loop AND provide Saturday service on this route to serve areas from the MAX station, and provide convenient transfers from C-Tran service which will not exist.

  31. Erik: I’ve got a “neglecting bus service” story for you.

    Last night at around 12:30, I got on the 35 Greeley downtown, (it was running about 5 minutes late.) And we went a few blocks before the lights went out. The driver got out and restarted it, and then got on the radio and reported that he kept losing electrical power. About 3 minutes later, a replacement bus showed up, and we took that one home without a problem, (okay, someone had to explain the route to the driver because he didn’t know it.)

  32. “The 5 line was never “frequent service”, it was at least 20 minute headways if not longer.”

    The #5 has always been frequent service, if you go look at the TIP, they list the number of frequent service lines by year, and the first year they even had a program called “Frequent Service” was 1999, and the #5 was one of the first, (along with #14 Hawthorne, #15 23rd, and #72 82nd.)

    But way before the “Frequent Service” program began operating, the #5 was every 15 minutes:

    http://portlandtransport.com/archives/2007/05/dispatches_from_1.html#c202868

    When I was as a tourist in Portland in 1993 I bought a Trimet-Guide that I still own. So I can give you some Informations about the Bus #5. There were two lines under this number. The regular line run every 15 minutes from 5:00 to midnight.

  33. The 5 line was never “frequent service”, it was at least 20 minute headways if not longer.

    Erik, are you referring to service across the Columbia, or the route as a whole? My understanding is that in later years, the #5 was indeed what would have been considered “frequent service” under today’s guidelines, at least for the Portland-only portion.

    Someone once sent me a Line 5 schedule from September, 2000. It shows 15-minute service to/from Vancouver for most of the day, but in the evenings alternating runs terminated at Jantzen Beach, making Vancouver runs half as frequent.

  34. Sorry to get personal, but why ride the 12 when there are all those 94s?
    It looks from the map as though the 12 and 94 are on the same route, just fewer stops for the 94, an express. Is that the problem out your way? no nearby stop? That is the problem with express buses versus light rail…no stops for half the trip.
    If TriMet has a bus that runs frequently but half full while its FS “sister” struggles, then someone needs to engage TriMet Planning to optimize things. We have done this on Swan Island, and if the ajustment means moving existing resources around, you very likely can get it done. Where is the City of Tigard on this?
    C-Tran service to Lloyd and OHSU is subsidized by employers; we had the same deal on Swan Island with the 191 until 2002. Now all I want is a Limited down I-5 from Salmon Creek, 99th P&R, Downtown Vancouver to the Delta/Vanport MAX Yellow Line station. Connections to the 16 are still weird…you have to ride MAX back to Expo, but there are good bus connections from most Yellow Line stations in all directions.
    I ride the 85 Swan Island almost every day…its a pleasure to watch ridership continue to grow.

  35. Erik Halstead Says:

    Jeff F. wrote: When TriMet had bus service into Vancouver, it was subsidized by C-TRAN. When the subsidy went away, so did the service.

    Actually, service increased.

    Nice dodge. TriMet service went away because the subsidy from C-TRAN went away, which was my point, in reference to your remark about Clark County subsidizing Yellow Line operating costs.

    This had nothing to do with whether or not C-TRAN provides more service across the river.

  36. I worked in downtown Vancouver in 2004 and C-Tran service basically stopped at 8pm, (it has gotten better since then.) So while how often the #6 ran over the river was useful to me, for most people in Clark County, how often the service ran in the evenings wasn’t going to change their wait times because they were still going to have to wait until 6am to transfer. As such, there were usually less people on that bus from the Vancouver stop at 9pm, than there were on the #35 at 12:30 last night…

Leave a Reply

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