Randy Gragg has a nice post over at Portland Spaces on the two alternative designs for the Transit/Ped/Bike bridge proposed for the Milwaukie Light Rail project.
Randy Gragg has a nice post over at Portland Spaces on the two alternative designs for the Transit/Ped/Bike bridge proposed for the Milwaukie Light Rail project.
26 responses to “To Wave or Not to Wave?”
The Milwaukie Light rail and bridge should be killed like the Convention Center Hotel.
Hopefully the legislature will withdraw the $250 million in lottery backed bonding and shift it into something needed and useful.
John E: The Milwaukie alignment should be a pretty popular route once it’s built. If you’ve ever driven 99e during rush hour you know it can be a mess, and you can’t add another lane, so a light rail line has the potential to positive affect traffic. The recent spike in gas prices has proven that people are willing to switch from driving to alternate forms of transport, and it looks like there will be a limited number of stops, which will make it more competitive with driving. The Milwaukie will provide service to OMSI and PSU in addition to downtown, and is being built to provide for future expansion to the south from Milwaukie (I think how far south they build on the original alignment is even still up for discussion). There just seems to be a lot going for this particular alignment, I just don’t see the downside here.
With regards to the original article, it sounds to me like the cable stay bridge is a foregone conclusion… which is a real shame because the wave bridge is aesthetically much more pleasing and fits much into its surroundings than the cable stay. Unfortunately, it looks like the decision makers prefer to have a bridge that “stands out” (to put it politely) rather than fits in. It’s not that I have anything against a cable stay design… I think such a design would probably work for the Sellwood Bridge replacement, for instance… it’s just that it looks totally out of place situated between the Marquam and the Ross Island briges. I hope Rosales is able to rework his budget numbers and change some minds here, it would be a real shame not to use his design.
The ‘Wave’ design seems to me also as the better fit asthetically and to denote is use. A cable-stayed bridge will be ‘viewed’ as a standard vehicle crossing more than a one-of-a-kind transit-pedestrian bridge. Only a cost-saving measure favors the cable-stayed bridge. This bridge is important for managing Portland’s growth.
Doug Says: If you’ve ever driven 99e during rush hour you know it can be a mess, and you can’t add another lane,
Billy: Of course you can add a lane. There is plenty of room and it appears that most of the land is already in public ownership.
Doug Says: so a light rail line has the potential to positive affect traffic.
Billy: Light Rail does not attract significant numbers out of cars. The only proven way to get large numbers of people to use transit is poverty (or streets so crowed it is impossible to drive.)
Doug Says: The recent spike in gas prices has proven that people are willing to switch from driving to alternate forms of transport,
Billy: Actually only about 3% of drivers switched to transit due to gas prices and that increase in ridership was a big problem for transit systems that faced increased costs due to more riders (fares cover only 20% of the cost in Portland).
With the speculators driven out of commodity speculation, expect gas prices to stay below $2 for a long time and all those “new” transit riders have probably already gone back to driving.
Doug Says: and it looks like there will be a limited number of stops, which will make it more competitive with driving.
Billy: Yeah, probably only take twice as long as driving!
Doug Says: There just seems to be a lot going for this particular alignment, I just don’t see the downside here.
Billy: Costs several times what adding a lane to the road costs. Carries few people.
Light rail costs too much, does too little. (A waste of money)
Billy: Light Rail does not attract significant numbers out of cars. The only proven way to get large numbers of people to use transit is poverty (or streets so crowed it is impossible to drive.)
Have you ever actually seen a rush-hour MAX train? Do you seriously believe all those commuters packed in there are riding because they’re under the poverty line?
Billy: Actually only about 3% of drivers switched to transit due to gas prices and that increase in ridership was a big problem for transit systems that faced increased costs due to more riders (fares cover only 20% of the cost in Portland).
This is from the Washington Post: Ridership growth began hitting record levels last year and continued through the first and second quarters of this year, spurred in large part by gasoline prices that topped $4 a gallon in July, the industry group said. But the third-quarter increase is notable, it said, because gas prices began falling and unemployment rose, trends that tend to drive ridership down.
Instead, ridership has gone up across the board nationwide. More than 2.8 billion trips were taken from July through September, rising 8.5 percent on light rail (streetcars), 7.2 percent on buses, 6.3 percent on commuter rail and 5.2 percent on subways.
Even though pump prices continue to plummet, transit officials said riders are sticking to buses and trains. Preliminary data for October show the upward trend continuing. In Los Angeles, rail ridership jumped nearly 17 percent in October compared with the same period last year.
New Ridership
“But the third-quarter increase is notable, it said, because gas prices began falling and unemployment rose, trends that tend to drive ridership down.”
Third quarter is through September. Gas prices were still pretty high through September.
Wait for the next quarterly report and expect lower transit ridership and silence from the likes of the American Public Transportation Association, the source of that story.
I hope we get the Wave bridge, though the Cable bridge will be fine when we get rid of the Marquam. The Milwaukie line will likely get FTA funding even faster under Obama as a green project that is almost ready to go. It is what the people of SE Portland and Milwaukie want, and will provide a real transportation option to folks who now drive 99E.
“…silence from the likes of the American Public Transportation Association, the source of that story.”
…said Jim “billy” Karlock without a hint of irony, who repeatedly cites such unimpeachable sources as the American Dream Coalition.
Come on Jim, let people talk about the bridge design. If we wanted to see your stump speech, we would look at every other thread that has anything at all to do with light rail.
“billy”:
Third quarter is through September. Gas prices were still pretty high through September.
Wait for the next quarterly report and expect lower transit ridership and silence from the likes of the American Public Transportation Association, the source of that story.
You didn’t actually read the article, did you?
Even though pump prices continue to plummet, transit officials said riders are sticking to buses and trains. Preliminary data for October show the upward trend continuing. In Los Angeles, rail ridership jumped nearly 17 percent in October compared with the same period last year. Loudoun County’s commuter bus ridership rose 25 percent in October over the previous year and more than 25 percent for the first 13 days of November from last year. The national average price for a gallon of gas was $1.73 yesterday.
Is it easier to just ignore information when it doesn’t support your belief system?
“Preliminary data for October”
Wait for final data before yelling too loud. Especially in the transit industry with their sloppy methods.
Grant: repeatedly cites such unimpeachable sources as the American Dream Coalition.
JK: I can’t ever recall citing the ADC as an information source (as opposed to analysis, or an easy link to a primary source.) I hope you can understand the difference.
In this case a report by a transit front group was used as the source. Big difference.
“billy”, the numbers on declining driving came from the Federal Highway Administration, not APTA. Are you going to dismiss that as a “front group”? Or are they just “sloppy”?
Doug is misinformed.
1. McLoughlin is not a mess. It’s ridership is very low and even the small stretch of 2 lanes in each direction flows better than other three lane highways.
2. Relatively speaking, there is not much transit usage in this corridor now. That’s where rail ridership comes from. The existing buses will disappear.
3. Dougs’ statement that another lane can’t be added is simple to refute. ODOT produced a report showing where McLoughlin Blvd could be improved by adding another lane. It’s available to read at Region 1 ODOT in their NW Portland office or at my house. The costs of all of the improvements, in the ODOT report, was $30 million in 1985 $.
4. The service to OHSU means to the Tram which means transferring to the trolley from the rail line and, then, transferring to the Tram. More importantly, ridership on the Tram is not people diverted from transit or the roads. The Tram is an elevator taking people up and down the hill. He forgot to mention taking people to the Biotech industry. The number of people going to PSU in the peak hours is negligible.
Mel
Mel,
I’d like to take a look at the report, would it be possible either for a) to you to email me the report or b) give me some more details about the report so I can contact ODOT? Was it produced in 1985? What’s the name of the report?
Thanks
On the assumption that Mel only has a paper copy, I’ll volunteer to scan the report & I’ll be Mel’s area Tue afternoon & can pick it up.
(Pending Mel’s approval of course.)
Thanks
JK
Jeff F Says: “billy”, the numbers on declining driving came from the Federal Highway Administration, not APTA. Are you going to dismiss that as a “front group”? Or are they just “sloppy”?
Billy: I don’t recall commenting on “declining driving”, so why did you bring up this red herring?
December 8, 2008 3:23 PM
billy Says:
Grant: repeatedly cites such unimpeachable sources as the American Dream Coalition.
JK: I can’t ever recall citing the ADC as an information source (as opposed to analysis, or an easy link to a primary source.) I hope you can understand the difference.
I’m trying to understand the difference between “billy” and JK. Not much, it appears. Sockpuppet, much?
Billy: I don’t recall commenting on “declining driving”, so why did you bring up this red herring?
It’s part of the Washington Post article, “billy.” It’s not at all a red herring, or even a pinko herring. Fewer people driving fewer miles even after gas prices have fallen, which is exactly the behavior you deny.
Billy/JK, it has been mentioned to you before that while pseudonymous posting is allowed, sockpuppetry is not allowed.
Please pick just one identity and stick with it. I suggest the JK identity, as it will provide continuity with past discussions.
If it is just by chance that someone posts the same information as you, the same slogans as you, in the same writing style as you, from the same address as you, using the same obscure ISP, within 3 minutes of one another, and repeatedly over time, please contact us privately to confirm the identity of this new household member.
Thanks.
Jim:
I’d appreciate it. It’s got nothing to do with me wanting to prove a point, I’m just genuinely interested in how ODOT would expand 99e. There’s a section at Westmoreland Park that I’d think would be impossible to expand without taking out some very large, very old trees. There would be a HUGE stink if they did so, so I’m curious what ODOT’s proposal would do there.
The Wave Bridge: I want it!!! I wonder if Earl and Barack can help make up any extra expense (for buying US Steel and getting a design that will be appreciated for centuries – what could be wrong with that?)
Jeff F Says: Billy: I don’t recall commenting on “declining driving”, so why did you bring up this red herring?
It’s part of the Washington Post article, “billy.” It’s not at all a red herring, or even a pinko herring.
JK: I simply choose not to comment on part of an article that is probably correct.
Jeff F Says: Fewer people driving fewer miles even after gas prices have fallen, which is exactly the behavior you deny.
JK: If you insist.
We went though all this in the 1970s. Driving went down, transit went up. Eventually transit continued its inevitable decline because of fundamental factors such as excessive cost, decreasing fuel efficiency, inconvienece and high crime rates.
This is just the first partial month of decreased prices, and any intelligent person waits a while for natural time lags to sort out.
That driving decreases with increased cost is a no brainier. The elasticity is of much interest. Especially what price of gas will cause driving to cut in half. (Actually that is not a rational goal, but popular in some circle.)
Well we doubled the price and driving fell just a little. (Say, $3.50)
Would tripling the price do it? (Say $5.25)
Quardruping? (Say $7.00)
The only reason that this question matters is that the Oregon has set a limit on CO2 requiring a 44% reduction. And the present proposal will force energy prices UP until the goal is met. What price will FORCE people to drive 44% less. Hopefully the goal will also apply to transit, since it has yet to prove an energy saving compared to efficient cars. And society is far better off with people in cars than on transit. (Note to critics: I wrote EFFICIENT CARS, not SUVs etc.)
Thanks
JK
Now that you’re back, Jim, do you think you could try to introduce some civility to your tone? You have an unfortunate tendency to question the intelligence of people who either disagree with you, or are just tired of seeing you post the same thing over and over again. You’re not going to convince people to listen to you with a holier-than-thou attitude. You didn’t talk to voters that way, did you? To wit:
“I hope you can understand the difference.” (addressed to me)
“any intelligent person waits a while for natural time lags to sort out.” (addressed to Jeff F)
That’s just on one thread. Sockpuppetry isn’t the only rule here you continually violate.
Jim will be picking up my copy. Perhaps he’ll scam and make abvailable, or others can go to ODOT.
As for the numbers, APTA uses trips, unlinked, which increase when rail opens because more people have to take a bus to get to thee rail and another, often, to get from rail to their destination.
Gas prices are not high anymore despite the efforts of greens to not increase energy while population is growing.
When they were high, car usage went down some but only 3% of the auto reduction went to transit. See
http://www.demographia.com/db-hwytr2008q3.pdf
We had gas price surges in 1973 and 1979. It took 6 months for the old trend to continue as motorists adjusted. A quicky way to see this is to go to the ODOT site and look up the I-5 bridge traffic counts during these periods.
Mel
Honestly,
While i’m a non-driver and pedestrian/bike enthusiast, this bridge needs to be built as cheaply as possible. This is not going to be a civic landmark or anything special. It’s a ped bridge. There are many like it. Let’s not drive down or our perceived value of the bridge by judging how fancy it looks.
As for widening McLaughlin Blvd, it would be better to cut it below grade and build ‘H’ pattern on/off ramps and a raised crossing at SE 17th and a level crossing at Ochoco. A half interchange at Holgate is also possible. Take out these three bottlenecks and there’s no need to widen Mclaughlin. This will increase property value near SE 17th and Ochoco, and make McLaughlin safer for pedestrians to cross there. The raised crossing at Tacoma was designed to become a cross-county expressway and as such makes a terrible pedestrian crossing. OK, now y’all can disagree completely now. Silly me.