Well I’ll say the same thing here that I said on the “O”.
“He has no problem making PUBLIC comments about the WES system, but where is he about the BUS system? ”
~~~Funny you should ask that because I just saw Fred up on 21st Avenue today around 1pm!
I’m 90% sure it was him! So what’s he doing? I presume he is “on vacation”.
OREGONIAN, WILL YOU PLEASE FIND OUT WHAT FRED HAS BEEN DOING SINCE SATURDAY!
“WES should have been abandoned.”
~~>I agree, it should never have been started. Now we hear from Fred the following;
“”First, I am asking for a 5% reduction in continuing expenses in both service and division budgets. This would result in a savings of approximately $11 million.
Second, we will lengthen the pension funding to soften the impact of recent market losses for a $7.7 million annual savings.””
So Fred has started new “rush hour” service while he can’t even keep what we have going!
“62% of riders use both Bus and MAX, 23% are MAX-Only, and 15% are Bus-Only.”
~~~I gotta tell ya, as someone who has followed Trimet news for quite awhile now, I am suspicious of Trimet statistics. Has there ever been an independent audit of the statistics Trimet provides?
FRED wants to cut existing service while starting new service.
HELL NO!
Fred is following the Corporate line right now. Blame everything on the stock market, can a bunch of your low level employees, then do whatever he wants with the bailout money.
How long are American’s going to stand for this?
This is mismanagement of the first degree.
But I’d gather that this is less honest as Al has pointed out than what anything GM or Ford have done in the last 30 years. At least they’re relatively self sustaining, until of course recently.
But then of course we bail out TriMet and most public transit every year by about 70-80% of their budgets. We bail out roadways by about 99.9% (few are self sustaining), we bail out bike infrastructure by 99%, and we bail out walkers by 99%. So hell, we might as well start bailing out every transportation industry, it’s been working great so far. (NOT!)
TriMet should have thrown in the towel long before it got to this point IMO. I like commuter rail and I like streetcars, but Portland is really turning these into a “how can we blow our entire money wad” competition.
The streetcar is WAY too expensive for what it does (even though I gotta say, it IS the only thing I’ve seen running consistently in the snow) and the WES is a vastly too expensive commuter rail line.
How do we ever expect to get the city connected and keep up with demand if this nonsense continues?
This is starting to appear as if Portland needs some solid regime change. Even though we’re definitely in for another X number of years of pro-cutesy transit things vs things we NEED or demand.
Adron wrote: even though I gotta say, it IS the only thing I’ve seen running consistently in the snow
Interestingly, I have to agree with this.
So, why isn’t the priority to take EXISTING TriMet routes, and consider which ones should be converted (in part or in whole) to Streetcar lines — instead of planning streetcar service totally separate from the transit system we have?
There shouldn’t be an “eastside streetcar” project, we should just convert the #6 line to a Streetcar.
(I will grant an exception to Lake Oswego, because there is the railroad right-of-way which makes a lot of sense.)
As for WES…it never made sense to begin with, and now TriMet is in “cover my assets” mode. However, when it comes to the bus system, Fred is strangely (but expectedly) absent. I wonder if he’s vacationing with Tom Potter (also noticeably absent). Then again, Al M. spotted him doing Christmas shopping on 21st Avenue while the rest of us are just trying to get to work… I know a bunch of people I work with aren’t getting any time off, they’re too busy…oh, I don’t know, maybe fixing downed power lines?
So, why isn’t the priority to take EXISTING TriMet routes, and consider which ones should be converted (in part or in whole) to Streetcar lines — instead of planning streetcar service totally separate from the transit system we have?
Erik, I don’t think you’ve been paying attention. The primary technical guide for the Streetcar System Plan effort is a ‘Primary Transit Network Analysis’, which means of course that we are primarily looking at streets that already have TriMet service.
I believe without a downtown or east side connection this seems doomed. The single light rail connection seems too few. I could see WES as a route in a larger system (McMinnville, Forest Grove, Salem and so on) but unfortunately no such thing exists. A Barbur/99 LRT or BRT could supplement for riders going to and coming from downtown (and beyond). Routing over the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge could provide connections to the L.O. streetcar and Milwaukee Max. I will echo other’s concern of the economic situation of the manufacture. A rather ungraceful (re)entrance of commuter rail to the Portland area
al: So why were the [expletive deleted] streets not clear?
There are a couple of possibilities. One is that there is a massive conspiracy on the part of the City of Portland to torture poor people by depriving them of bus service.
Another possibility is that the City of Portland would be fiscally irresponsible if they spent the necessary funds to buy three or four times the existing number of plows to deal with a storm like this that comes every 40 years. Same goes for Gresham (who had to borrow plows from Portland), Washington County, Clackamas County . . . what are they thinking?!! What does it matter if snow plows sit idle for years (or decades) at a time?
Why did Greyhound cancel any service into the PNW because of a little snow? Doesn’t it ever snow in the Midwest? In New England? Don’t they run buses through those regions in the winter? And Amtrak? What’s up with that?
What is it that you expect government officials to do, Al? If they buy plows, what do they have to give up that they could otherwise responsibly purchase?
Chris Smith wrote: Erik, I don’t think you’ve been paying attention. The primary technical guide for the Streetcar System Plan effort is a ‘Primary Transit Network Analysis’, which means of course that we are primarily looking at streets that already have TriMet service.
Huh. I haven’t been paying attention? Here’s what Metro’s website says:
In early 2008 Metro released an Environmental Assessment of the proposed streetcar extension from Northwest 10th Avenue and Lovejoy Street in the Pearl District, across the Broadway Bridge and south along the Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Grand Avenue couplet. This followed a summer 2006 approval of the extension by the Metro Council. The ultimate goal is to create a loop back across the Willamette River to the Westside.
Please state WHICH TriMet bus route that this line duplicates.
If there’s planning outside of what Metro, the City of Portland, portlandstreetcar.org and TriMet’s websites all fail to publicize…that’s nice but clearly the next Streetcar project does NOT upgrade a bus to a streetcar.
Benjamin B. wrote: I could see WES as a route in a larger system (McMinnville, Forest Grove, Salem and so on)
Commuter Rail between Portland and Salem would demand an entirely different design. Using WES as a base would be completely ineffective.
Look at the commuter rail systems in Vancouver, B.C., Seattle, San Francisco-San Jose, Stockton-San Jose, Los Angeles basin, San Diego, even in New Mexico and Salt Lake City, or Chicago.
Last month I rode a Metrolink train from Los Angeles to Orange County (and return); my outbound train had a locomotive and six coaches. Return, a locomotive and three coaches. Extensive low level platforms – one such example (Santa Ana, CA) is 660 feet long (northbound track). In comparison, WES platforms are no more than 200 feet long and are high-level platforms. All of those other systems use bi-level coaches; completely incompatible with WES’ platforms.
In short, using WES as a springboard towards an expanded system is short-sighted at best. A continuation of WES might work for an extension along T.V. Highway to Forest Grove, or to serve the Milwaukie-Sherwood (or potentially Newberg or even McMinnville) due to the lower population. But Portland-Salem deserves a “real” commuter rail system, like what the Utah Transit Authority is developing, or what Sound Transit has built. And – to upgrade WES to standard commuter rail spec would require rebuilding every station, completely rebuilding the track at Beaverton TC (actually, it would require the station to be relocated, there isn’t enough room at Beaverton TC), demolition of a house in Tualatin, and a completely new maintenance facility as the current facility is designed specifically for the WES vehicles, and nothing else.
If there’s planning outside of what Metro, the City of Portland, portlandstreetcar.org and TriMet’s websites all fail to publicize…that’s nice but clearly the next Streetcar project does NOT upgrade a bus to a streetcar.
This is the 30-50 year vision for a streetcar network, different from the Streetcar Loop project you’re referencing.
But I would note that the Streetcar Loop is about 90% on existing transit streets.
We’re talking a little past each other in that you are discussing converting existing routes in toto to streetcar while I’m talking about the fact that streetcar will most of the time be on segments that are part of the existing transit network.
existing segments != existing routes
Routes evolve over time, so I don’t see why we need to plan a future system that exactly matches current patterns. Particularly since the major motivation to upgrade a line from bus to streetcar is to drive changes in land use which in turn produce new trip generators that need to be served.
When big corporations make a mistake like this, those people responsible are held accountable and often replaced. Any recovery is also often reflected in the price of their product or service. So should it be at TriMet. Fred and others must be held accountable, and the price of a ticket on WES needs to be increased significantly to address this blunder in addition to better reflecting the actual fiscal costs of constructing and providing the service.
Terry Parker: When big corporations make a mistake like this, those people responsible are held accountable and often replaced.
In this country? Are you joking?
They’d be more likely to get a bigger annual bonus than be replaced. Pick up a newspaper and read about the executives on Wall Street, the big insurance firms, the auto manufacturers . . . I mean, seriously, Terry, that’s just not true.
Chris Smith wrote: But I would note that the Streetcar Loop is about 90% on existing transit streets.
So the goal is to change transportation patterns which DIRECTLY, AND NEGATIVELY impacts bus riders by forcing them to change existing transportation patterns and habits, for the benefit of Streetcar planners?
If the idea that transportation patterns change, then why is anyone against the Interstate Highway System? After all, patterns change. So there is no problem with the shift from streetcar to private auto to freeway use.
On the other hand, using existing transportation networks and upgrading them (which falls under Metro’s “corridors” planning) is a true representation of the “we can’t build our way out of congestion” mentality that is often cited as a problem with the highway approach (despite the lack of “new” highways).
So what if transportation patterns change – with a bus network, it’s simply a matter of adding a new bus route (which doesn’t sacrifice existing service). With a new streetcar line, it DOES impact current bus riders (because the streetcar competes, and often takes, funding that would have been used for bus improvements, such as new buses, bus stop improvements, and other amenities).
It might be easy for you to move on a whim to a new home so that you let transportation dictate your life, but for the other one million Portland metro area residents, we live where we live for a reason. Why can’t every Portland resident deserve quality transportation no matter where we live – in areas that the City and Metro have previously encouraged development in?
So the goal is to change transportation patterns which DIRECTLY, AND NEGATIVELY impacts bus riders by forcing them to change existing transportation patterns and habits, for the benefit of Streetcar planners?
Yes, that’s right, Erik, I’m part of the global conspiracy to screw bus riders.
Hmmm… since I’m frequently a bus rider, maybe I should change my ways.
Seriously, my goal is to create the most livable region possible, with equity a very high factor.
Livability involves land use as well as transportation and it’s unmistakably true that transportation investments affect land use patterns in a major way. So in creating a 30-50 year vision, I’m not afraid to look at transportation investments that help re-shape land use patterns.
Your approach would seem to say that we can’t ever change a transit route because it is certainly going to inconvenience at least one rider.
And to specifically address the Streetcar Loop, I think the operative question is whether after the Loop goes into operation, TriMet will stop the #6 somewhere near Rose Quarter (interlining with the 70 is one idea that has been suggested) or continues it into downtown.
We should have a robust public debate about that question, and ultimately do what’s best for the entire set of transit riders, not any one particular subset.
And to specifically address the Streetcar Loop, I think the operative question is whether after the Loop goes into operation, TriMet will stop the #6 somewhere near Rose Quarter (interlining with the 70 is one idea that has been suggested) or continues it into downtown.
We should have a robust public debate about that question, and ultimately do what’s best for the entire set of transit riders, not any one particular subset.
When you have the time, Chris, I’d like to hear an explanation of the benefits of streetcars over trolley buses. When I look at a vehicle like this one, I have a very difficult time believing that it wouldn’t attract as many passengers (or as much development) as a railed vehicle.
Installing rails (and maintaining them) is expensive, time-consuming and disruptive. If we can achieve the same result with simple electrification, why stick with the existing model, especially if the intention is to expand beyond the loop?
Installing rails (and maintaining them) is expensive, time-consuming and disruptive. If we can achieve the same result with simple electrification, why stick with the existing model, especially if the intention is to expand beyond the loop?
Some studies have shown that we get a better return on investment by installing streetcars, and most have hypothesized different reasons. One obvious one I’ve heard is that development follows streetcar more effectively precisely because the streetcar can not easily be moved, unlike a bus line.
At the same time, living along a streetcar line will also likely see additional amenities due to the fact that the streetcar also makes it a more desirable site to locate a business.
It probably helps ridership as well, because they’re an easy way to remember what runs and where. With buses I know that I’m less likely to use them the farther I get from my house. I don’t know the routes, the stops or the schedules. The MAX and streetcar are much easier to remember, but as the network grows this advantage might be reduced.
The same thing happens to me in other cities, San Francisco for example I know where the BART runs, I have a good idea where the MUNI subways and trolleys run, but without looking up the route in advance I won’t use a bus.
Someone on here had suggested painting the streets to indicate the bus routes, and I still think this would be a great idea. Once I transfer off of the 15, 17, or 77 I really am not sure what routes serve where. If I’ve looked up my route in advance, no worries, but if I haven’t I’ll stick with MAX or the streetcar so I don’t get terribly lost.
Dave: Some studies have shown that we get a better return on investment by installing streetcars, and most have hypothesized different reasons. One obvious one I’ve heard is that development follows streetcar more effectively precisely because the streetcar can not easily be moved, unlike a bus line.
I should clarify that I’m not referring to a bus (check the photo) but a trolley bus. Catenaries aren’t all that easy to move, and the vehicles are not much different from a streetcar.
I’ve asked the question before: are there any studies that directly compare a streetcar to a trolley bus in terms of development?
If I’ve looked up my route in advance, no worries, but if I haven’t I’ll stick with MAX or the streetcar so I don’t get terribly lost.
No matter where you’re going or how you’re getting there, it doesn’t hurt to plan ahead. And, y’know, maps are good.
I am pretty sure the “development” you see around the streetcar or other rail has more to do with the massive subsidies offered rather then the rail itself.
I am a 100% supporter of trolly buses, and a 100% supporter of 10 lane freeways. Rail projects just don’t make sense here in Portland.
“I am pretty sure the “development” you see around the streetcar or other rail has more to do with the massive subsidies offered rather then the rail itself.”
>>>> This is something that has been stated many times by different people. Perhaps the rail propaganda is done the divert attention away from the real reason for development, i.e., subsidies.
“I am a 100% supporter of trolley buses, and a 100% supporter of 10 lane freeways. Rail projects just don’t make sense here in Portland.”
>>>> I am a now a 0% supporter of trolleybuses (I revised my opinion of them–better then streetcars but still too inflexible). I am a 0% supporter of more freeways, and a 100% supporter of bus/BRT, which DOES make sense in Portland. We are just not dense enough for rail.
“~~~I gotta tell ya, as someone who has followed Trimet news for quite awhile now, I am suspicious of Trimet statistics. Has there ever been an independent audit of the statistics Trimet provides?”
>>>> Ya know, I starting to have the same feeling. How are we know that they are not using methodologies that put MAX, for example, in a more favorable light when it to comes to ridership?
Chris, I just want to point out that in each of my posts, I have not directly referenced to you (other than quoting something that you have said), but in each of your responses you have made a personally directed comment at me.
Why is it that you feel the need to drag down another thread into a debate about me? This discussion isn’t about you but you are acting as though it is.
Anyways, let’s discuss the DISCUSSION POINTS and not any individuals:
Your approach would seem to say that we can’t ever change a transit route because it is certainly going to inconvenience at least one rider.
That’s not what I said – in fact, I said this previously:
So what if transportation patterns change – with a bus network, it’s simply a matter of adding a new bus route (which doesn’t sacrifice existing service).
So, in fact, I acknowledged that service CAN, and often SHOULD, be adjusted if needs warrant. Bus routes can and do change, and that’s OK if there is a valid justification for doing so.
The problem I have with streetcar planning is that streetcars take away (and thus discriminate) against bus riders. We’ve spent how many MILLIONS in rail-based transit investment in the last ten years — and what have bus riders gotten? Cutbacks? Higher fares? Fewer new buses? Lack of bus stop amenities and bus amenities? How is any of that “fair”?
Anyone who reads my posts will see that I supported the use of streetcar as an improvement over bus service. I don’t necessarily agree that it’s necessary (due to cost) but even I agree that streetcar has some benefits to it. (But, again, this whole issue isn’t about me.)
So, we are building this great big streetcar loop that doesn’t really add transit to our region. Meanwhile, Fred Hansen sends a letter to TriMet employees outlying the cuts that are being made, including capital budget cuts which entirely affect the bus operation. How is that fair?
That’s nice that one little corner of Portland is going to be “livable” but ALL of Portland needs “livability”. ALL of Portland needs transit. Not just a favored little corner. Unfortunately our leaders fail to understand this.
Now, Chris, do you think you can actually address this post WITHOUT making personally directed comments?
Nick, the old urbanist wrote: I am a now a 0% supporter of trolleybuses (I revised my opinion of them–better then streetcars but still too inflexible)
One benefit of a trolleybus is that in the event of a blockage or a required re-route, trolleybuses have a limited capability of moving around.
A trolleybus can by itself move one lane in either direction, to pass a stopped car or for road construction. It cannot, however, pass another trolleybus without the disabled or stopped trolleybus dropping its trolley pole, or as follows.
Most trolleybuses (at least the ones in Seattle) also have a limited battery capacity. So, if an entire street is blocked, the bus can pull down the trolley poles and travel a distance of several blocks on battery power, at reduced speed.
And, Seattle used to use dual-mode trolley buses (with diesel engines); however these have been retired (some of the former dual-modes have been rebuilt as straight trolleybuses with the diesel engine removed). It would probably be easier today to make a dual-mode vehicle with hybrid technology, since the role of the diesel engine would simply be to generate electricity to power the motors or charge the batteries when not in straight-electric mode.
That said…there are still disadvantages to trolleybuses, being that you can’t just run them anywhere. It should be noted that in Seattle, which receives some 95% of its power from hydroelectric generation, its trolleybus fleet is much more carbon neutral than MAX/Streetcar will ever be…
So, we are building this great big streetcar loop that doesn’t really add transit to our region.
Whatever is done with the #6, I am certain that the impact of the Streetcar Loop will be a significant net increase in transit ridership. I am also certain that the per-capita carbon footprint of the region will be lower with the Loop than without.
So, we are building this great big streetcar loop that doesn’t really add transit to our region. Meanwhile, Fred Hansen sends a letter to TriMet employees outlying the cuts that are being made, including capital budget cuts which entirely affect the bus operation. How is that fair?
I agree that we should be finding additional revenue sources to keep the buses from getting cut back, a new streetcar won’t do as much good if there’s nothing feeding people to it. At the same time, the streetcar for some reason is definitely more popular with casual transit riders, at least from the people I’ve spoken to.
I’m sure there’s a lot of psychology behind it, but most people seem to have a perception that the streetcar is easier to use in some way. It has a fixed route, it runs in a loop, it’s easy to find, and it’s easier to remember what it runs near are all reasons people have given me for why they like it.
I bet we could get a lot of them to use a bus running with a streetcar shell, some painted “tracks” on the road, the arrival boards, shelters, etc. It would cost more for that route to do so, so wouldn’t you still have the same complaint that it was hurting other bus service?
Hotels and restaurants know that the streetcar and MAX are selling points for them. The new aloft Portland Airport at Cascade Station mentioned the MAX connecting them to downtown in every single press release I saw from them leading to their opening in September. Same for the Nines in downtown, mentioning how the MAX is right there. These businesses advertise it because it’s seen as a great amenity.
“And, Seattle used to use dual-mode trolley buses (with diesel engines); however these have been retired (some of the former dual-modes have been rebuilt as straight trolleybuses with the diesel engine removed). It would probably be easier today to make a dual-mode vehicle with hybrid technology, since the role of the diesel engine would simply be to generate electricity to power the motors or charge the batteries when not in straight-electric mode.”
>>>> Seattle, with its very steep hills, may have justification for trolleybuses on some routes. Here in Portland, regular buses can serve almost everywhere, even in the West Hills. (What a big laugh, when the news came out that there would be no streetcars in SW Portland!)
Anyway, hybrid buses, like the ones used in Seattle and by
C-Tran, have made both streetcars and trolleybuses obsolete. In fact, I was surprised at just how quiet the hybridC-Tran buses are.
Anyway, hybrid buses, like the ones used in Seattle and by C-Tran, have made both streetcars and trolleybuses obsolete. In fact, I was surprised at just how quiet the hybridC-Tran buses are.
I think the technology has a way to go, although I think the C-TRAN buses sure look ultramodern and I’m told they’re very quiet and comfortable to ride in. They also cost about $200K more than a diesel bus, and C-TRAN figures they’ll have to replace the batteries every 6-7 years. Fuel savings? C-TRAN reported an improvement from 5.2 mpg to 6.8 mpg.
ATTENTION: Effective December 23, 2008 Colorado Railcar Manufacturing ceased it’s business operations. Colorado Railcar Manufacturing has a major liquidity problem, and it’s lenders have a secured position in the assets of the company. The company is in the process of liquidation. The company has no employees effective December 31st, 2008.
As for our Hybrid buses, they are decent but not good enough to eliminate the Streetcar or Light-Rail.
They are pathetic in the snow
They like to catch fire – We’ve had 8 bus fires involving the Hybrids, one which burned completely to the ground.
They don’t get that good of gas mileage over the D60LF’s. It is only a slight improvement. The D40LF’s get a good jump in mileage but again, prone to fire for whatever reason.
Whatever is done with the #6, I am certain that the impact of the Streetcar Loop will be a significant net increase in transit ridership. I am also certain that the per-capita carbon footprint of the region will be lower with the Loop than without.
Brian Bundridge wrote: They are pathetic in the snow
My understanding was that the issue wasn’t the hybrid buses, it was articulated buses (which include the hybrids) were having difficulties on steep, icy hills (because the engine/driveaxle is on the articulated section of the bus, they simply jackknife going uphill and don’t have good control going downhill.)
Seattle has a large fleet of non-hybrid articulated buses – 274 D60HFs (diesel, high-floor), and a fleet of D60LFs (diesel, low floor) but Metro’s website incorrectly gives the hybrid information on the non-hybrid bus page. There are also 59 articulated trolleybuses (the Bredas).
They like to catch fire – We’ve had 8 bus fires involving the Hybrids, one which burned completely to the ground.
Not specific to hybrids. TriMet had a rash of bus fires not too long ago. TriMet’s 2400s (WorldTrans 3000 mini-buses) had a fire problem resulting in the premature retirement of most of that fleet, save for a couple vehicles for Washington Park Shuttle service.
TriMet’s lost a few D40LFs due to fires. There have been no fire issues with the two DE40LFs.
They don’t get that good of gas mileage over the D60LF’s. It is only a slight improvement. The D40LF’s get a good jump in mileage but again, prone to fire for whatever reason.
It’s also known that:
Seattle was running the hybrid buses initially on express routes which used the I-5/I-90 Express Lanes. Just like a Prius, a hybrid does very little benefit on the freeway. So, initial tests showed that the hybrid buses weren’t getting great results.
However, when the buses were put on regular stop-and-go local routes, mileage improved. (Just like a Prius.)
Secondly, even Metro’s website says that their DE40LF (40′ hybrid bus, identical to the two that TriMet owns) weren’t living up to expectations; but the articulated hybrids were doing much better. That’s why Metro announced that huge order for several hundred hybrid buses which received wide coverage within and outside the transit industry.
Certainly, if the hybrids weren’t as good as claimed, why would Metro go out and place orders for 600+ new buses – especially when the hybrid model adds 20-50% to the base cost?
Finally, if the DE40LFs were much better in the fuel economy department than D40LFs, then why did Metro say they won’t purchase anymore? In fact, the ONE DE40LF is currently in Sound Transit service, and even Sound Transit says that it’s not suitable for their use:
Sound Transit bought one 40-foot diesel-electric hybrid and managed the coordination of a demonstration project with its regional transit partners. The bus rotated in three-month intervals with each participating agency. At the end of the demonstration period, it was evident that the seating capacity would not work for the type of commuter service Sound Transit provides. As a result, Sound Transit will not purchase more.
Seattle is a leader in using hybrid bus technology. Vancouver, BC is also a leader – Vancouver also has hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles in service. Snohomish County is running double-decker buses. Pierce County has a 100% CNG fleet. Even smaller communities like Spokane and Eugene are running high capacity articulated buses; Eugene and Vancouver (Washington) recognize the value of hybrid buses…
Portland, which claims to be a “leader” and “innovator”, can’t claim ONE thing with regards to bus service in which Portland is the innovator or a leader. In fact, according to TriMet’s own “awards and recognition” website, the last time TriMet was recognized by the transit industry for anything specific to bus service was a 3rd Place award in the Bus Roadeo in 2003.
…I think the C-TRAN buses sure look ultramodern and I’m told they’re very quiet and comfortable to ride in.
I can tell you from firsthand (albeit somewhat biased) experience that they’re very comfortable, and I’d go as far as to say they’re the most comfortable local transit buses in the region.
By creating opportunities for low-carbon-footprint residential and employment locations, which increases transit mode-share vs. auto mode-share and decreases greenhouse gases and other air toxins.
How does the Streetcar Loop help…oh, Tigard?
Presumably Tigard shares in the regional benefits (e.g., people live in the Lloyd/Central Eastside instead of commuting through Tigard from further out).
But the real benefits for Tigard will come when it develops land use patterns (which transit can assist) which allow people to live and work without requiring a car for most of their trips.
Who cares? It’s a Portland project, funded (local share) by Portland sources for the primary benefit of the people of Portland, and most specifically for the properties and businesses along the corridor that will see the most benefit. But folks from all over the region get to ride it with a Tri-Met pass or ticket when they come into town. And long-term, it may reduce the region’s overall air pollution and carbon footprint a bit.
So, we are building this great big streetcar loop that doesn’t really add transit to our region. Meanwhile, Fred Hansen sends a letter to TriMet employees outlying the cuts that are being made, including capital budget cuts which entirely affect the bus operation. How is that fair?
Different agencies. City vs. Tri-Met. Why should Portland back off on its streetcar investment because Tri-Met is having trouble with its budget?
That’s nice that one little corner of Portland is going to be “livable” but ALL of Portland needs “livability”. ALL of Portland needs transit. Not just a favored little corner. Unfortunately our leaders fail to understand this.
“Our leaders” seem to understand it pretty well. PDOT is looking into a city wide streetcar network. Since we can’t afford to build the whole system at once, it makes sense to start in the middle and work outward.
Back on topic: Now that Colorado Railcar has folded, where does that leave WES?
A secondary question: is there an longer-term opportunity for Oregon Iron Works to start building DMUs as well as streetcars? Or maybe for Freightliner to move into diesel railcars as well as trucks?
Doug – I would fully support Oregon Iron Works to start a DMU project. If the streetcar is a success, I would have full confidence that they could start a DMU project that is FRA-Compliant.
I’m not sure if this is factual or not but I’ve heard that the new Bombardier AGC DMU is or can be made FRA compliant but there is nothing on they’re website.
Chris Said: “And to specifically address the Streetcar Loop, I think the operative question is whether after the Loop goes into operation, TriMet will stop the #6 somewhere near Rose Quarter (interlining with the 70 is one idea that has been suggested) or continues it into downtown”
The primary reason to cut back on bus service is to stack the deck forcing people on to the streetcar so the ridership numbers look better to the Fed in an attempt to better position the streetcar for Federal funding. . .
Chris continued by saying: “We should have a robust public debate about that question, and ultimately do what’s best for the entire set of transit riders, not any one particular subset”.
What we should have is a robust planning effort involving the public that doesn’t start with a mode choice such as s streetcars, but looks to where there maybe a “genuine” need for increased transit infrastructure (not just for the purpose of replacing the automobile), and then study all options including trolley busses and motor busses comparing the benefits and costs with a cost-benefit analysis that is truly objective and not manipulated by one-sided bias politics and streetcar advocates. Furthermore, this study must also consider how a mode choice impacts congestion and other traffic using the same thoroughfare that includes, parking (which is important to small businesses), speed of the mode and whether or not the mode can get out of the way of and not obstruct other traffic when stopping for passengers.
Chris also said: Livability involves land use as well as transportation and it’s unmistakably true that transportation investments affect land use patterns in a major way. So in creating a 30-50 year vision, I’m not afraid to look at transportation investments that help re-shape land use patterns.
Livability is totally a non-quantified subjective term meaning different things to different people. Included in this subjectivity are individual transportation choices, taxes, lifestyles, housing choices, and density just to mention a few. Any changes in land use patterns must NOT be subsidized by taxpayers. Therefore, calling the streetcar an investment in change and/or a development tool is a farce. The taxpayers get pummeled thrice with streetcars: first with the high cost of construction: second, by having PDC often sell off sell public owned properties to developers at less than true value or at a loss, and then have the City hand out tax breaks and property tax abatements like free candy: and third, by having taxpayers subsidize the operational costs instead of the passengers footing the bill. Portland got rid of it streetcar system because it too was only a development tool, but privately funded. Once the land was developed where the streetcars were initially designed to serve, the streetcars were no longer cost effective and self sufficient. We need not be developing act two whereby the streetcars can not even financially support themselves from the very beginning.
Chris Smith wrote: By creating opportunities for low-carbon-footprint residential and employment locations
And how do other forms of transit – specifically, buses – not do this?
Presumably Tigard shares in the regional benefits (e.g., people live in the Lloyd/Central Eastside instead of commuting through Tigard from further out).
How does Tigard benefit when people live in downtown Portland instead of commuting through Tigard (on a state owned/maintained highway, so there is little to no direct cost to Tigard city itself) and potentially spending money at Tigard businesses or even living/working in Tigard?
Douglas K. wrote: It’s a Portland project, funded (local share) by Portland sources for the primary benefit of the people of Portland
It might be a Portland project but it uses regional transportation dollars. So, money that could be used for regional projects are going to a local project. So Tigard is actually disadvantaged by the Streetcar project; instead of the funds being used to improve 99W, or improve regional bus service, as two examples. (Even my proposed Portland-Tualatin MAX line would have a huge regional benefit including to Tigard, serving two Metro designated regional centers and one Metro designated two center within Tigard’s city limits).
Chris Smith wrote: But the real benefits for Tigard will come when it develops land use patterns (which transit can assist) which allow people to live and work without requiring a car for most of their trips.
Again, how does the Streetcar do this?
Tigard has the full right, this second, WITHOUT the streetcar, to zone its land however it wants. It could rezone downtown Tigard for high density, right now. It doesn’t need a Streetcar to do it. (And frankly, downtown Tigard is dead because of a lack of attention by the city, not because of a lack of a streetcar. Downtown McMinnville is a great example of a central business district that’s been revitalized in the last decade, and McMinnville has but a shell of a transit system. See http://www.newsregister.com/article/23840-snow-brings-flurry-shoppers )
Meanwhile, I can count two parking lots close to my work which border the existing Portland Streetcar line. A third lot was a restaurant that was torn down and seeded with grass. I walk along the Streetcar line from Naito Parkway to 4th Avenue and come across zero pedestrian-friendly businesses, just three pre-existing apartment buildings, a solid wall for an office building, and the side entrance to a PSU building.
Douglas K. wrote: PDOT is looking into a city wide streetcar network.
Let’s see the gaps in that “city-wide” streetcar network.
In Southwest, the only corridor is Barbur. That leaves communities like Hillsdale, Multnomah Village (ironically, itself a “streetcar suburb” and an excellent example of a detached business district that is extremely successful and popular today), Hillsdale, Garden Home (a community built by interurban railroad service) – untouched by streetcar service. Major transportation generators like PCC Sylvania are also left out.
In East, anything east of 122nd Avenue is completely ignored; along with the Rose City Park and Parkrose neighborhoods north of I-84.
The Division corridor is left untouched for any transit upgrades, despite being home to one of TriMet’s most frequently used bus routes, the 4-Division line. Division is also a major “mixed use” street with residential and commercial uses and connects multiple neighborhoods together.
In Northeast, the Cully neighborhood is prominently ignored; as well as the vast residential area between the Lloyd District and Alberta – including the successfully revitalized Fremont business district.
In North, only one line along Lombard (interestingly, a state highway) is planned; while areas along Columbia Boulevard (a divider between the residential neighborhoods to the south, and the industrial (job centers) neighborhoods to the north is left unserved; as well as areas to the north/west of St. Johns business district.
Also, the Linnton/Willbridge neighborhood is completely untouched.
If this is a “city wide” streetcar plan, there’s a lot of “city” that is not served. And, since these Streetcar lines will take decades (and hundreds of millions of dollars, if not into the billions) to build – what happens in the meantime? Does transit service simply decline – essentially, promoting the image that buses are poor quality? Or does Portland work to improve and encourage transit ridership (with buses) to build up demand for the Streetcar?
As for WES…considering that WES travels PAST two Metro designated Regional Centers without any service…clearly, there is a huge disconnect between land use planning and transportation planning. We could have improved the 76 line (which serves the two Regional Centers, plus three Town Centers and a Hospital) but once again, the true colors are shown that spending money on rail trumps improving bus service, even when it runs counter to the land-use argument.
How does Tigard benefit when people live in downtown Portland instead of commuting through Tigard (on a state owned/maintained highway, so there is little to no direct cost to Tigard city itself) and potentially spending money at Tigard businesses or even living/working in Tigard?
Traffic that passes through a community (as opposed to trips that originate or terminate in the community) is almost always detrimental, if for no other reason than it uses up capacity that is then not available to the community (but also for lots of other reasons).
But the real benefits for Tigard will come when it develops land use patterns (which transit can assist) which allow people to live and work without requiring a car for most of their trips. – Again, how does the Streetcar do this?
Streetcar has a track record, in conjunction with good land use planning and zoning, of attracting private development dollars to activate planned land use patterns (i.e., build to close to planned FAR). Bus routes simply do not attract private dollars in the same (BRT might be a different story, but BRT is not appropriate for the local circulation function provided by either the current Streetcar of the planned Loop.
Why, because people hold down jobs so they can earn a living to support themselves, their families and their choice of transport, housing and lifestyle, not to subsidize other people’s lifestyles and the greed of socialistic government fantasies. Any change in land use patterns needs to be financially self-sustainable where the developers make money due to the product provided, not by lining up and milking the public funding trough. The streetcar model is flawed and broken – first with taxpayers subsidizing the construction, then subsidizing creating a demand and finally subsidizing the ongoing operation. That is government extortion. Passengers need to be paying for the streetcars, not taxpayers.
Why, because people hold down jobs so they can earn a living to support themselves, their families and their choice of transport, housing and lifestyle, not to subsidize other people’s lifestyles and the greed of socialistic government fantasies.
Terry, I hate to break it to you, but taxation is the means by which a community (city, state, country) pays for services the community has decided it wants or needs. If your house is on fire, you don’t have to pay the fire company to put it out, and if you never have a fire in your house, you’re subsidizing all the people that do. And the people that call 911 for medical treatment.
Streets, sidewalks, transit systems — they work the same way. You pay for them whether or not you use them because the community decided we should do so. Labeling city planners as “socialist” just reveals that you don’t understand what that word means.
Help me understand something. Has anyone figured out why the Lloyd district has failed to grow in the same way as other areas in the central city such as the Pearl, SoWa, the West End, etc… This area has 5 minute or better MAX service, and an extensive bus network. What is the streetcar going to add that will make this the next hot spot that Max hasn’t been able to achieve.
Don’t get me wrong, I think the westside streetcar line is perfect in the way it pulls together different districts in downtown portland…and I can understand the success of it. But I’m just not seeing the same elements in play for the eastside.
Jeff Said: “taxation is the means by which a community (city, state, country) pays for services the community has decided it wants or needs.”
Not entirely true! There has yet to be a public vote on funding streetcars or implementing a bicycle tax, nor has a public vote even been considered City or State political circles. Therefore the community has not even had the opportunity to decide.
“Streets, sidewalks, transit systems — they work the same way.”
If they did work the same way, there would not be a gas tax, motor vehicle license and registration fees whereby motor vehicle road users pay for roads in addition to subsidizing bicycles and transit vehicles using the roads. If they did work the same way, a bicycle user tax, license and/or registration fee would pay for bicycle infrastructure and transit would be financially self-sustainable paid for by passenger/users. A socialist is a person who wants to control the choices of the people. In Portland and Oregon, socialism is being applied either by levying taxes and fees on specific activities, or the absence of taxes and fees on specific activities.
Not entirely true! There has yet to be a public vote on funding streetcars or implementing a bicycle tax, nor has a public vote even been considered City or State political circles. Therefore the community has not even had the opportunity to decide.
The community doesn’t vote on every single issue, Terry. The community selects members from the community to serve as governing bodies and those governing bodies determine the best use of public funds. They’re not always right, obviously, and when they’re wrong we have a system in place to either replace them or to change the decisions they’ve made.
A socialist is a person who wants to control the choices of the people.
No, Terry. A socialist is someone with very specific views on the control of the means of production and distribution. People who want to control other people’s choices are authoritarian or totalitarian, and they may be from the Left or the Right.
Take the time to read about Robert Moses and how he shaped New York. You’ll undoubtedly enjoy his preference for automobiles over public transit, but his urban planning had devastating results in the community he served. He took away choices of hundreds of thousands of people, with the best of intentions. Was Robert Moses a “socialist”?
There has yet to be a public vote on funding streetcars or implementing a bicycle tax, nor has a public vote even been considered City or State political circles. Therefore the community has not even had the opportunity to decide.
On the other hand, the people of Portland have consistently chosen politicians to represent them who have made no secret of their pro-bicycle, pro-transit agenda. If “the community” didn’t like these decisions, they’d have voted the current crop out years ago.
I am a now a 100% supporter of trolleybuses, 100% supporter of BRT/BUS, 100% supporter of Light Rails & Subway, and 70% supporter for Streetcars in Portland regional area, so I really like San Fransico had light rail, trolleybuses, and Streetcars, too nice! I really appreciated with other Trolleybuses supporters on Transport.com forum. I just enjoyed to read their opinion about transit modes in Portland Oregon, so I wish urging supporter of Trolleybuses should write letters to politicans for trolleybuses supports. I found out information that Utah – Salt Lake City goes considering about trolleybuses included Los Angeles (I do not sure). Let me know, did you get my message?
About the whole Streetcar loop thing, I’m still not convinced that Portland’s trying to choose the best route and infrastructure for it.
Grand and MLK… Highway 99E… The only major throughfare in the inner-eastside… Traffic jams and back-ups? Oh yeah!
I want the streetcar to happen, but I don’t want to sit on some damn streetcar stuck in traffic! Learn from mistakes made with station platforms on the existing route, streetcars are delayed every day when a right-turning car holds up traffic as they wait for pedestrians to clear the crosswalk. Mid-block platforms would help alleviate those delays.
Chris Smith wrote: Traffic that passes through a community (as opposed to trips that originate or terminate in the community) is almost always detrimental
The question is how to attract that traffic so it’s not just passing through, but contributing to the community. Frankly, Tigard has done a poor job with such – it’s main thoroughfare is 99W/Pacific Highway, but Tigard’s biggest “destinations” are not on 99W – Washington Square (about a mile north of 99W) and Bridgeport Village (partially in Tigard, and to the southeast). The “Tigard Triangle” which is bordered on one side by 99W has failed to develop. And Tigard’s Main Street offers very little, even to its own residents, in terms of any services.
Streetcar has a track record, in conjunction with good land use planning and zoning, of attracting private development dollars to activate planned land use patterns (i.e., build to close to planned FAR). Bus routes simply do not attract private dollars in the same
But it can’t be proven that streetcar is the reason for that; and in fact other areas of Portland that lack Streetcar service have seen same/similar benefits as the Streetcar neighborhoods. This fact is conveniently overlooked by Streetcar supporters.
As for bus not attracting the same development – when TriMet refuses to invest in quality bus service and bus stops, it’s no wonder. It’s no wonder that Metro ignores bus service altogether, and the City of Portland refuses to make improvements directly related to bus service.
Downtown Salem is seeing new development and growth with a new transit center at the center of it – Salem doesn’t have Streetcars. Seattle has a transit tunnel that has a number of developments that have direct access to the tunnel – imagine being able to walk out of a high-rise condo building, into a transit tunnel, to ride your bus to your destination, and into your work – all without leaving the tunnel – it’s possible. And of course Portland’s Transit Mall which attracted development and interest in downtown Portland, all without Streetcars.
If anyone can give an example of a bus route in Portland that was given the same level of attention as a Streetcar line and failed to develop (both ridership and development), let me know. But since it hasn’t been done or attempted, there is no comparison.
But it can’t be proven that streetcar is the reason for that; and in fact other areas of Portland that lack Streetcar service have seen same/similar benefits as the Streetcar neighborhoods. This fact is conveniently overlooked by Streetcar supporters.
This is one point where I completely agree with Erik. In order to make claims about how streetcar achieves this and buses don’t, you need to have a direct comparison with as few variables as possible. In Portland, Streetcar was built through areas that were already developed, like downtown and NW Portland, or through areas that were heavily weighted in favor of development, like the Pearl.
I think the Skoda cars are pretty and Euro-looking, and there have been a few times when I found the service convenient. In general, however, I think it’s costly service that is almost entirely redundant. There are customers that complain because TriMet’s trip planner “never” puts them on Streetcar — that’s because most trips served by Streetcar are faster on a bus, and frequently more convenient on one end of the trip or another.
But it can’t be proven that streetcar is the reason for that
This claim seems dubious; the correlation between early-20th-century streetcar routes and development nodes is pretty strong. Of course, neighborhoods developed without streetcars too, but the presence of streetcar was undoubtedly a contributing factor. Further, the evidence of rail-oriented development exists in every city on earth with a history of rail transit.
The correlation between travel mode type and historic development patterns is equally evident for travel by foot, horse, boat, and car. I must admit, bus-oriented development is something I’ve never observed.
This claim seems dubious; the correlation between early-20th-century streetcar routes and development nodes is pretty strong. Of course, neighborhoods developed without streetcars too, but the presence of streetcar was undoubtedly a contributing factor. Further, the evidence of rail-oriented development exists in every city on earth with a history of rail transit.
Chicken? Egg? How many of those early 20th century streetcars were built without development already in existence?
The correlation is flawed, anyway, because streetcars (and subways, et al) were the primary mode of transport, especially for public transportation, when they were originally planned and built. Few cars, very few buses, so naturally there was a connection at the time.
If you want a good example of rapid development without a streetcar, here in Portland, you only have to look at the Mississippi Avenue neighborhood. Ten years ago, it was a depressed, rundown neighborhood with empty buildings and low property values. Within the span of just a few years, the entire neighborhood was revitalized. Shops, restaurants, bars, and all sorts of businesses have appeared, along with a ton of customers. We could make the argument that this was a result of fine service on the 4-Fessenden, but transit had little to do with Mississippi. And, I’m pretty sure, without much in the way of incentives from the City.
Jeff said: “A socialist is someone with very specific views on the control of the means of production and distribution.”
That can be defined as the “production” of transport infrastructure and the “distribution” of tax dollars to pay for modes that are not directly taxed.
Jeff also said when referring to Robert Moses: “He took away choices of hundreds of thousands of people, with the best of intentions.”
This sounds more like the eco supremacists that continually rant about “getting people out of their cars”, and Sam Adams with his bias tax vendetta targeting motorists with excessive taxes and fees, and then subsidizing streetcars, transit and freeloading bicyclists.
Furthermore, when it comes to voting, people do not always agree with everything a candidate stands for when they vote for that candidate, do not always have a choice for another candidate with a difference of opinion, and well known candidates have a huge advantage over unknown candidates including when it comes to fundraising. Therefore with big spending issues and tax increases, a vote of the populace needs to be a prerequisite. Moreover, if anybody read the article in the “O” today “TriMet railcar supplier fails”, it was blatantly obvious that with new transit infrastructure sought after by the political community, it is taxpayer be d____d and full stream ahead to get what they are seeking at any expense. TriMet’s board of directors were not even briefed with information about the previous business ventures and failures involving the manufacturer Colorado Rail Car and its owner. The information was available but was withheld, and again we hear just excuses instead of accountability form management and the political arena.
That can be defined as the “production” of transport infrastructure and the “distribution” of tax dollars to pay for modes that are not directly taxed.
It _could_ be, but in common historical parlance it most certainly isn’t.
Terry tosses out a few other terms and phrases: eco supremacists … bias tax vendetta … and (as usual) freeloading bicyclists.
Terry: How about ratcheting the rhetorical flourishes back a notch and making calmer arguments and engaging in the discussion for a change? Redefining terms and constantly repeating pejorative slogans doesn’t actually win a debate, and it certainly doesn’t expand your base.
well known candidates have a huge advantage over unknown candidates including when it comes to fundraising.
Not in this local election… any serious candidate with grassroots support could have qualified for Voter-Owned-Elections funding. In fact, a non-incumbent, non-insider VOE candidate won a city council seat this cycle.
There were numerous candidates in the mayoral race. If you count all of the opponents together as representing some kind of “anyone but Sam” voting block, they still didn’t add up to a simple majority.
Jeff also said when referring to Robert Moses: “He took away choices of hundreds of thousands of people, with the best of intentions.”
This sounds more like the eco supremacists that continually rant about “getting people out of their cars”, and Sam Adams with his bias tax vendetta targeting motorists with excessive taxes and fees, and then subsidizing streetcars, transit and freeloading bicyclists.
It may sound that way to you, but it has nothing to do with either Robert Moses or your misuse of the word “socialist.” Why not address that?
Perhaps this is evidence that video snapshots don’t quite capture reality. Short of reading Robert Caro’s book, you could just read the NYT obit. Or read the Wikipedia entry, which is pretty thorough.
“Perhaps this is evidence that video snapshots don’t quite capture reality.”
Actually, video is much better at capturing ‘reality’, no contest.
However, abstract thought maybe video is not the way to go, however watching and listening to the great thinkers speak their thoughts works much better for me.
Actually, video is much better at capturing ‘reality’, no contest.
I’ll risk certain humiliation here and actually comment on something related to my degree (Broadcast Media Communication): Video as a medium is something which can be so easily distorted and manipulated that any sense of “reality” experienced should be highly suspect. But then, so is the written word.
Change is directly taxing bicyclists to pay for all the construction (and maintenance) of specialized infrastructure. Change is adding a surcharge to transit fares to pay for the heavy damage TriMet’s two axle busses do to the roads. Change is charging transit fares that better reflect the actual fiscal costs of providing the service. Change in Portland is the elimination of Fareless Square. Change in Portland is demand first transit planning instead of (streetcar) mode first transit planning. Change is not expecting motor vehicle taxes and fees to subsidize other modes of transport.
Change in Portland is returning parking meter revenues to roadway maintenance funds instead of siphoning them off to fund streetcar operations. Change in Portland is not continually ranting about and spending tax dollars to “get people out of their cars”. Change in Portland is supporting infrastructure with increased capacity for motor vehicles. Change in Portland is not spending roadway dollars to super-size sidewalks. Change in Portland is providing bus turnouts on major thoroughfares, requiring busses to pull over to the curb on city streets, and eliminating congestion creating curb extensions, including not building any more of them. Change in Portland is maintaining the streets and roads before spending transportation dollars on new infrastructure, Change Portland is having Metro and PDOT citizen committees that have proportional representation from motorists (based on mode split), are not stacked decks comprised of the same ongoing usual subjects over and over again, and do not require a litmus test for membership. Change in Portland is NOT having a political mindset that continually promotes discrimination against motorists, including charging xcessive taxes fees and proposed tolls. Change in Portland is not attempting to use the Columbia River Crossing as a hammer and not telling the people in Clark County what their =land use policies should be.
Yes Bob, I support change – all of the afore mentioned!
Terry, when I said “for a change”, I did not mean that the topic of the discussion had to be about some particular kind of “change” politically, I meant that I hoped you would change your rhetorical style personally, to better-engage in the discussion here. As in: “try a new strategy for a change”.
Just as rhetorical are statements like “getting people out of their cars”, and any other pointed and often repeated messages that are aimed at controlling lifestyles and personal mobility choices, through taxes or otherwise.
While repeated by some here, “getting people out of their cars” is a calm, clear, straightforward statement of a goal.
Phrases like “bias tax vendetta” and “freeloading bicyclists”, while conveying your feelings, nonetheless have a high degree of hyperbole, and in the case of the latter, are demonstrably false and do not contribute to the discussion when constantly repeated. You put stuff like that in nearly every comment you say, while rarely adding anything new.
Al, you got a good point about the Streetcar. Overall though, even though the capital outlay is more initially, in the end it will be cheaper than buses. Also, you are right, the number one thing that completely knocks the streetcar out of service is simply a parked vehicle that is out of alignment and the Portland Streetcar’s lacking response to tow the lousy bastards. So simply, things far less significant than the snow storm will knock out the streetcar, but ALL of them can be mitigated if the city just gets its job done.
There is however two major differences though between clearing the paths for buses and clearing the streetcar path.
The snow cost the city 2+ million dollars in snow removal. It was incapable from lack of equipment and personel to remove the snow, they did what they could with what they had, just like TriMet. No one in this area is prepared for the mess. But whatever the cost, it cost $2 million to deal with and zero to keep the streetcar running.
Even if the streets were NOT cleared the streetcars of yesteryear, on almost every route they used to run on would have worked through the entire storm. It would have take 2x (literally) more snow to stop the streetcar. The MAX would have run if they would/could merely keep the switches heated. It is far less to heat a few switches than it takes to plow streets.
Simply put, rail vehicles of any stripe can handle 2-3, or even 4 or 5x as much snow as rubber on road vehicles. On heavy rail, freight systems generally handle 10-30x as much snow as we had (unfortunately they too, sometimes get 30x more snow than Portland had).
Also, removing streetcar obtrusions, such as badly parked cars, nets the city and tow truck drivers cash revenue. So really, for the city they come out on top with additional streetcars and not additional buses.
Erik – Last note on this topic of streetcar vs. bus. I do believe the bus with the catenary i.e. trolley bus would be GREAT! Getting rid of the diesel aspect of buses would make me extremely happy, along with I’m sure every single person that has gotten sick from the belckin, puking, disgusting beat up ole’ diesel buses we have. I believe Portland is the last large north west city to keep running these things. Seattle, Tacoma, and other areas all have hybrids that burn clean fuels (like natural gas). However there is one problem, and this would affect a LOT of TriMet Riders.
The thousands of technology workers that will only ride the MAX or Streetcar won’t ride a bus. Those same thousands, who pay by far the largest amount of funds into the coffers of Portland’s tax bucket, will not ride buses. They can’t work on those buses (generally), they don’t like them, and they don’t enjoy being around or associating with them much. But as I said they will ride the MAX & Streetcar. I’ve seen these people and work with them every day. Sure, some of us tech workers that are more reliant (and dig riding) the transit system in general will get on whatever vehicle. But fact is, I’ll take a light rail or streetcar seat to my destination anyday over the bus for the simple fact that it is 10x easier to work on a laptop.
…and when it comes down to money to those city coffers, those are the people they want because those tech workers, or creative types as they often call them, pay TONS in taxes. Matter of fact that measly dozen percent or so of the population probably pays almost as much as the entire other 80-90% of the population.
…SUMMARY…
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m all for better bus routes. I’d rather not see another diesel bus for my entire life, but I’ll be back on a bus tomorrow I’m sure. But if the city can manage to continue the growth of the creative class, and thus the monies that pays for the betterment of the city, they do need to focus on streetcars and light rail right now. This of course, puts them in juxtaposition with TriMet, who’s job is supposed to serve the largest amount of riders possible. TriMet however is under the control of the city, being a Republic we the citizens don’t actually get a direct say.
Anyway, just some things to consider when thinking about how expensive rail is (when really after 20 years, it’s cheaper than bus service – such as the original alignment finished in 86 – we’re now in the cheap era for that segment, what was it $150 million or something?)
Adron wrote: Overall though, even though the capital outlay is more initially, in the end it will be cheaper than buses.
That hasn’t proven true, TriMet runs a number of bus lines that have lower boarding costs than the Streetcar.
Of course, if the capital and deprecation costs were actually amortized into the boarding costs, and financing costs were allocated to the mode, bus would win hands down (since many of TriMet’s buses are fully depreciated and don’t require bonding authority to replace, there is zero capital cost after a bus is on the road for 12 years, and zero interest expense.) TriMet’s current accounting model requires bus riders to pay for MAX capital costs.
But whatever the cost, it cost $2 million to deal with and zero to keep the streetcar running.
Yes, the Streetcar did a good job in the snow.
BUT…there wasn’t “zero” cost. As the streetcar continued to run, it actually created a traffic hazard for motorists (and buses). On one particular day, the section of Harrison between 1st and Naito was actually blocked off by City of Portland crews trying to clear the road, since vehicles continuing on Harrison have to get into the same lane as Streetcars where extremely hazardous ruts had formed.
Further, at 4th and Harrison, I wish I had one of Al’s videocameras with me that day. It was like watching TriMet buses going off-roading in the Mount Hood National Forest, navigating over and around the ruts formed by the Streetcar. Nobody ever bothered to clear the intersection and even after much of the road was passable at the 20 MPH speed limit, that intersection continued to require vehicles to cross through at a walking pace.
The thousands of technology workers that will only ride the MAX or Streetcar won’t ride a bus.
I wonder how many Intel employees at the Aloha campus ride transit. Considering that until Westside MAX was constructed, the 88 line literally was a Downtown Portland-Intel bus route, and even operated with artics.
I also don’t know of many “tech” jobs on the Streetcar route… But there are quite a few tech jobs in Wilsonville whose businesses support a growing bus system; there are quite a few business centers in Washington County connected only by bus — I believe that if we actually invested in the bus system properly, that it would encourage ridership. Accepting the bus stereotype is not what Portland should be about. There was once a time when streetcars had a very negative image…
they do need to focus on streetcars and light rail right now.
In other words, let’s forget about the 65% of TriMet riders who ride the bus. Let’s make riding the bus so miserable, that they’d rather drive a car. That’s the wrong direction to go. It’s the wrong direction to deny transit access to a huge percentage of Portland to favor a select few…we wouldn’t treat any other government service the same way so why do we treat transit that way?
how expensive rail is (when really after 20 years, it’s cheaper than bus service
Not necessarily. Remember, TriMet bus riders are forced to subsidize MAX construction costs. And it’s TriMet which chooses to make bus service more expensive than necessary – using low capacity buses instead of high capacity buses – the 72 bus could serve the same passengers with 30% less fuel and labor cost, as one example; entering into a fuel hedge that means TriMet pays 50% more fuel than I can at Jubitz up in north Portland – and my price includes fuel tax (which TriMet is exempt from); and relies on outdated buses which require more maintenance (and more maintenance expense).
TriMet claims that it has one of the most fuel-efficient fleets in the nation, but why does C-Tran get a whole mile-per-gallon more than TriMet does (which equates to 20% better fuel economy fleet-wide)?
Bob said: “Phrases like “bias tax vendetta” and “freeloading bicyclists”, while conveying your feelings, nonetheless have a high degree of hyperbole”
Obviously then, these phrases are working. They are giving bicyclists a conscious and making people aware of who is actually financially supporting alternative forms of transport, motorists – not the users. I couldn’t make these types of statements if bicyclists were taxed and paid license and registration fees; and if transit fares covered a significantly greater share of the costs of providing the service.
Bob said: “Phrases like “bias tax vendetta” and “freeloading bicyclists”, while conveying your feelings, nonetheless have a high degree of hyperbole”
Obviously then, these phrases are working.
Terry, please go look up the definition of “hyperbole”. In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. ” Just like you keep using the word “socialism.”
If the people in the region did not support transit and bicycles and sustainability — we would not have the elected officials we have.
78 responses to “TriMet’s WES Defense”
Well I’ll say the same thing here that I said on the “O”.
“He has no problem making PUBLIC comments about the WES system, but where is he about the BUS system? ”
~~~Funny you should ask that because I just saw Fred up on 21st Avenue today around 1pm!
I’m 90% sure it was him! So what’s he doing? I presume he is “on vacation”.
OREGONIAN, WILL YOU PLEASE FIND OUT WHAT FRED HAS BEEN DOING SINCE SATURDAY!
“WES should have been abandoned.”
~~>I agree, it should never have been started. Now we hear from Fred the following;
“”First, I am asking for a 5% reduction in continuing expenses in both service and division budgets. This would result in a savings of approximately $11 million.
Second, we will lengthen the pension funding to soften the impact of recent market losses for a $7.7 million annual savings.””
So Fred has started new “rush hour” service while he can’t even keep what we have going!
“62% of riders use both Bus and MAX, 23% are MAX-Only, and 15% are Bus-Only.”
~~~I gotta tell ya, as someone who has followed Trimet news for quite awhile now, I am suspicious of Trimet statistics. Has there ever been an independent audit of the statistics Trimet provides?
FRED wants to cut existing service while starting new service.
HELL NO!
Fred is following the Corporate line right now. Blame everything on the stock market, can a bunch of your low level employees, then do whatever he wants with the bailout money.
How long are American’s going to stand for this?
This is mismanagement of the first degree.
Funny, people like to blame private corporations.
But I’d gather that this is less honest as Al has pointed out than what anything GM or Ford have done in the last 30 years. At least they’re relatively self sustaining, until of course recently.
But then of course we bail out TriMet and most public transit every year by about 70-80% of their budgets. We bail out roadways by about 99.9% (few are self sustaining), we bail out bike infrastructure by 99%, and we bail out walkers by 99%. So hell, we might as well start bailing out every transportation industry, it’s been working great so far. (NOT!)
…and oh yeah.
TriMet should have thrown in the towel long before it got to this point IMO. I like commuter rail and I like streetcars, but Portland is really turning these into a “how can we blow our entire money wad” competition.
The streetcar is WAY too expensive for what it does (even though I gotta say, it IS the only thing I’ve seen running consistently in the snow) and the WES is a vastly too expensive commuter rail line.
How do we ever expect to get the city connected and keep up with demand if this nonsense continues?
This is starting to appear as if Portland needs some solid regime change. Even though we’re definitely in for another X number of years of pro-cutesy transit things vs things we NEED or demand.
Adron wrote: even though I gotta say, it IS the only thing I’ve seen running consistently in the snow
Interestingly, I have to agree with this.
So, why isn’t the priority to take EXISTING TriMet routes, and consider which ones should be converted (in part or in whole) to Streetcar lines — instead of planning streetcar service totally separate from the transit system we have?
There shouldn’t be an “eastside streetcar” project, we should just convert the #6 line to a Streetcar.
(I will grant an exception to Lake Oswego, because there is the railroad right-of-way which makes a lot of sense.)
As for WES…it never made sense to begin with, and now TriMet is in “cover my assets” mode. However, when it comes to the bus system, Fred is strangely (but expectedly) absent. I wonder if he’s vacationing with Tom Potter (also noticeably absent). Then again, Al M. spotted him doing Christmas shopping on 21st Avenue while the rest of us are just trying to get to work… I know a bunch of people I work with aren’t getting any time off, they’re too busy…oh, I don’t know, maybe fixing downed power lines?
So, why isn’t the priority to take EXISTING TriMet routes, and consider which ones should be converted (in part or in whole) to Streetcar lines — instead of planning streetcar service totally separate from the transit system we have?
Erik, I don’t think you’ve been paying attention. The primary technical guide for the Streetcar System Plan effort is a ‘Primary Transit Network Analysis’, which means of course that we are primarily looking at streets that already have TriMet service.
I don’t want to be a spoil sport here since the street car did come through in this particular emergency.
Of course there are plenty of scenarios that would knock the streetcar COMPLETELY OUT OF THE BALLPARK!
But what I am trying to say is the buses WOULD HAVE RUN FINE IF THE STREETS WERE CLEARED!
So why were the [expletive deleted] streets not clear?
Because the CITY OF PORTLAND (and Washington County) does not prioritize this in their budget!
The streets were not cleared for the same [expletive deleted] reason that the pot holes are not filled!
This sort of management has to stop. It’s inexcusable.
The mismanagement is rampant among all of our governmental agencies and gives ADRON HALLS free market theory much credibility!
I believe without a downtown or east side connection this seems doomed. The single light rail connection seems too few. I could see WES as a route in a larger system (McMinnville, Forest Grove, Salem and so on) but unfortunately no such thing exists. A Barbur/99 LRT or BRT could supplement for riders going to and coming from downtown (and beyond). Routing over the Union Pacific Railroad Bridge could provide connections to the L.O. streetcar and Milwaukee Max. I will echo other’s concern of the economic situation of the manufacture. A rather ungraceful (re)entrance of commuter rail to the Portland area
al: So why were the [expletive deleted] streets not clear?
There are a couple of possibilities. One is that there is a massive conspiracy on the part of the City of Portland to torture poor people by depriving them of bus service.
Another possibility is that the City of Portland would be fiscally irresponsible if they spent the necessary funds to buy three or four times the existing number of plows to deal with a storm like this that comes every 40 years. Same goes for Gresham (who had to borrow plows from Portland), Washington County, Clackamas County . . . what are they thinking?!! What does it matter if snow plows sit idle for years (or decades) at a time?
Why did Greyhound cancel any service into the PNW because of a little snow? Doesn’t it ever snow in the Midwest? In New England? Don’t they run buses through those regions in the winter? And Amtrak? What’s up with that?
What is it that you expect government officials to do, Al? If they buy plows, what do they have to give up that they could otherwise responsibly purchase?
Jeff E-
Your always very reasonable, and I appreciate that.
But PORTLAND has money for toilets, streetcars, immigrant labor centers, NEED I GO ON?
W-H-E-R-E are the priorities?
Jeff F that is,
Jeff E is somebody else I think?
Chris Smith wrote: Erik, I don’t think you’ve been paying attention. The primary technical guide for the Streetcar System Plan effort is a ‘Primary Transit Network Analysis’, which means of course that we are primarily looking at streets that already have TriMet service.
Huh. I haven’t been paying attention? Here’s what Metro’s website says:
http://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=13800
In early 2008 Metro released an Environmental Assessment of the proposed streetcar extension from Northwest 10th Avenue and Lovejoy Street in the Pearl District, across the Broadway Bridge and south along the Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Grand Avenue couplet. This followed a summer 2006 approval of the extension by the Metro Council. The ultimate goal is to create a loop back across the Willamette River to the Westside.
Please state WHICH TriMet bus route that this line duplicates.
If there’s planning outside of what Metro, the City of Portland, portlandstreetcar.org and TriMet’s websites all fail to publicize…that’s nice but clearly the next Streetcar project does NOT upgrade a bus to a streetcar.
Benjamin B. wrote: I could see WES as a route in a larger system (McMinnville, Forest Grove, Salem and so on)
Commuter Rail between Portland and Salem would demand an entirely different design. Using WES as a base would be completely ineffective.
Look at the commuter rail systems in Vancouver, B.C., Seattle, San Francisco-San Jose, Stockton-San Jose, Los Angeles basin, San Diego, even in New Mexico and Salt Lake City, or Chicago.
Last month I rode a Metrolink train from Los Angeles to Orange County (and return); my outbound train had a locomotive and six coaches. Return, a locomotive and three coaches. Extensive low level platforms – one such example (Santa Ana, CA) is 660 feet long (northbound track). In comparison, WES platforms are no more than 200 feet long and are high-level platforms. All of those other systems use bi-level coaches; completely incompatible with WES’ platforms.
In short, using WES as a springboard towards an expanded system is short-sighted at best. A continuation of WES might work for an extension along T.V. Highway to Forest Grove, or to serve the Milwaukie-Sherwood (or potentially Newberg or even McMinnville) due to the lower population. But Portland-Salem deserves a “real” commuter rail system, like what the Utah Transit Authority is developing, or what Sound Transit has built. And – to upgrade WES to standard commuter rail spec would require rebuilding every station, completely rebuilding the track at Beaverton TC (actually, it would require the station to be relocated, there isn’t enough room at Beaverton TC), demolition of a house in Tualatin, and a completely new maintenance facility as the current facility is designed specifically for the WES vehicles, and nothing else.
If there’s planning outside of what Metro, the City of Portland, portlandstreetcar.org and TriMet’s websites all fail to publicize…that’s nice but clearly the next Streetcar project does NOT upgrade a bus to a streetcar.
http://www.portlandonline.com/Transportation/index.cfm?c=46134
This is the 30-50 year vision for a streetcar network, different from the Streetcar Loop project you’re referencing.
But I would note that the Streetcar Loop is about 90% on existing transit streets.
We’re talking a little past each other in that you are discussing converting existing routes in toto to streetcar while I’m talking about the fact that streetcar will most of the time be on segments that are part of the existing transit network.
existing segments != existing routes
Routes evolve over time, so I don’t see why we need to plan a future system that exactly matches current patterns. Particularly since the major motivation to upgrade a line from bus to streetcar is to drive changes in land use which in turn produce new trip generators that need to be served.
isnt there a plan to convert the 15 bus to streetcar… belmont on the eastside, and burnside, 23rd to montgomery park on the westside?
considering WES is about a month away from opening wouldnt it be best to wait until then before judging the success of the operation?
When big corporations make a mistake like this, those people responsible are held accountable and often replaced. Any recovery is also often reflected in the price of their product or service. So should it be at TriMet. Fred and others must be held accountable, and the price of a ticket on WES needs to be increased significantly to address this blunder in addition to better reflecting the actual fiscal costs of constructing and providing the service.
Terry Parker: When big corporations make a mistake like this, those people responsible are held accountable and often replaced.
In this country? Are you joking?
They’d be more likely to get a bigger annual bonus than be replaced. Pick up a newspaper and read about the executives on Wall Street, the big insurance firms, the auto manufacturers . . . I mean, seriously, Terry, that’s just not true.
When big corporations make a mistake like this, those people responsible are held accountable and often replaced.
no they are not, apparently you havent been following the news for the last 6 months.
Chris Smith wrote: But I would note that the Streetcar Loop is about 90% on existing transit streets.
So the goal is to change transportation patterns which DIRECTLY, AND NEGATIVELY impacts bus riders by forcing them to change existing transportation patterns and habits, for the benefit of Streetcar planners?
If the idea that transportation patterns change, then why is anyone against the Interstate Highway System? After all, patterns change. So there is no problem with the shift from streetcar to private auto to freeway use.
On the other hand, using existing transportation networks and upgrading them (which falls under Metro’s “corridors” planning) is a true representation of the “we can’t build our way out of congestion” mentality that is often cited as a problem with the highway approach (despite the lack of “new” highways).
So what if transportation patterns change – with a bus network, it’s simply a matter of adding a new bus route (which doesn’t sacrifice existing service). With a new streetcar line, it DOES impact current bus riders (because the streetcar competes, and often takes, funding that would have been used for bus improvements, such as new buses, bus stop improvements, and other amenities).
It might be easy for you to move on a whim to a new home so that you let transportation dictate your life, but for the other one million Portland metro area residents, we live where we live for a reason. Why can’t every Portland resident deserve quality transportation no matter where we live – in areas that the City and Metro have previously encouraged development in?
So the goal is to change transportation patterns which DIRECTLY, AND NEGATIVELY impacts bus riders by forcing them to change existing transportation patterns and habits, for the benefit of Streetcar planners?
Yes, that’s right, Erik, I’m part of the global conspiracy to screw bus riders.
Hmmm… since I’m frequently a bus rider, maybe I should change my ways.
Seriously, my goal is to create the most livable region possible, with equity a very high factor.
Livability involves land use as well as transportation and it’s unmistakably true that transportation investments affect land use patterns in a major way. So in creating a 30-50 year vision, I’m not afraid to look at transportation investments that help re-shape land use patterns.
Your approach would seem to say that we can’t ever change a transit route because it is certainly going to inconvenience at least one rider.
And to specifically address the Streetcar Loop, I think the operative question is whether after the Loop goes into operation, TriMet will stop the #6 somewhere near Rose Quarter (interlining with the 70 is one idea that has been suggested) or continues it into downtown.
We should have a robust public debate about that question, and ultimately do what’s best for the entire set of transit riders, not any one particular subset.
Chris Smith Says:
And to specifically address the Streetcar Loop, I think the operative question is whether after the Loop goes into operation, TriMet will stop the #6 somewhere near Rose Quarter (interlining with the 70 is one idea that has been suggested) or continues it into downtown.
We should have a robust public debate about that question, and ultimately do what’s best for the entire set of transit riders, not any one particular subset.
When you have the time, Chris, I’d like to hear an explanation of the benefits of streetcars over trolley buses. When I look at a vehicle like this one, I have a very difficult time believing that it wouldn’t attract as many passengers (or as much development) as a railed vehicle.
Installing rails (and maintaining them) is expensive, time-consuming and disruptive. If we can achieve the same result with simple electrification, why stick with the existing model, especially if the intention is to expand beyond the loop?
Installing rails (and maintaining them) is expensive, time-consuming and disruptive. If we can achieve the same result with simple electrification, why stick with the existing model, especially if the intention is to expand beyond the loop?
Some studies have shown that we get a better return on investment by installing streetcars, and most have hypothesized different reasons. One obvious one I’ve heard is that development follows streetcar more effectively precisely because the streetcar can not easily be moved, unlike a bus line.
At the same time, living along a streetcar line will also likely see additional amenities due to the fact that the streetcar also makes it a more desirable site to locate a business.
It probably helps ridership as well, because they’re an easy way to remember what runs and where. With buses I know that I’m less likely to use them the farther I get from my house. I don’t know the routes, the stops or the schedules. The MAX and streetcar are much easier to remember, but as the network grows this advantage might be reduced.
The same thing happens to me in other cities, San Francisco for example I know where the BART runs, I have a good idea where the MUNI subways and trolleys run, but without looking up the route in advance I won’t use a bus.
Someone on here had suggested painting the streets to indicate the bus routes, and I still think this would be a great idea. Once I transfer off of the 15, 17, or 77 I really am not sure what routes serve where. If I’ve looked up my route in advance, no worries, but if I haven’t I’ll stick with MAX or the streetcar so I don’t get terribly lost.
Or I just drive.
Dave: Some studies have shown that we get a better return on investment by installing streetcars, and most have hypothesized different reasons. One obvious one I’ve heard is that development follows streetcar more effectively precisely because the streetcar can not easily be moved, unlike a bus line.
I should clarify that I’m not referring to a bus (check the photo) but a trolley bus. Catenaries aren’t all that easy to move, and the vehicles are not much different from a streetcar.
I’ve asked the question before: are there any studies that directly compare a streetcar to a trolley bus in terms of development?
If I’ve looked up my route in advance, no worries, but if I haven’t I’ll stick with MAX or the streetcar so I don’t get terribly lost.
No matter where you’re going or how you’re getting there, it doesn’t hurt to plan ahead. And, y’know, maps are good.
I am pretty sure the “development” you see around the streetcar or other rail has more to do with the massive subsidies offered rather then the rail itself.
I am a 100% supporter of trolly buses, and a 100% supporter of 10 lane freeways. Rail projects just don’t make sense here in Portland.
“I am pretty sure the “development” you see around the streetcar or other rail has more to do with the massive subsidies offered rather then the rail itself.”
>>>> This is something that has been stated many times by different people. Perhaps the rail propaganda is done the divert attention away from the real reason for development, i.e., subsidies.
“I am a 100% supporter of trolley buses, and a 100% supporter of 10 lane freeways. Rail projects just don’t make sense here in Portland.”
>>>> I am a now a 0% supporter of trolleybuses (I revised my opinion of them–better then streetcars but still too inflexible). I am a 0% supporter of more freeways, and a 100% supporter of bus/BRT, which DOES make sense in Portland. We are just not dense enough for rail.
“~~~I gotta tell ya, as someone who has followed Trimet news for quite awhile now, I am suspicious of Trimet statistics. Has there ever been an independent audit of the statistics Trimet provides?”
>>>> Ya know, I starting to have the same feeling. How are we know that they are not using methodologies that put MAX, for example, in a more favorable light when it to comes to ridership?
Chris, I just want to point out that in each of my posts, I have not directly referenced to you (other than quoting something that you have said), but in each of your responses you have made a personally directed comment at me.
Why is it that you feel the need to drag down another thread into a debate about me? This discussion isn’t about you but you are acting as though it is.
Anyways, let’s discuss the DISCUSSION POINTS and not any individuals:
Your approach would seem to say that we can’t ever change a transit route because it is certainly going to inconvenience at least one rider.
That’s not what I said – in fact, I said this previously:
So what if transportation patterns change – with a bus network, it’s simply a matter of adding a new bus route (which doesn’t sacrifice existing service).
So, in fact, I acknowledged that service CAN, and often SHOULD, be adjusted if needs warrant. Bus routes can and do change, and that’s OK if there is a valid justification for doing so.
The problem I have with streetcar planning is that streetcars take away (and thus discriminate) against bus riders. We’ve spent how many MILLIONS in rail-based transit investment in the last ten years — and what have bus riders gotten? Cutbacks? Higher fares? Fewer new buses? Lack of bus stop amenities and bus amenities? How is any of that “fair”?
Anyone who reads my posts will see that I supported the use of streetcar as an improvement over bus service. I don’t necessarily agree that it’s necessary (due to cost) but even I agree that streetcar has some benefits to it. (But, again, this whole issue isn’t about me.)
So, we are building this great big streetcar loop that doesn’t really add transit to our region. Meanwhile, Fred Hansen sends a letter to TriMet employees outlying the cuts that are being made, including capital budget cuts which entirely affect the bus operation. How is that fair?
That’s nice that one little corner of Portland is going to be “livable” but ALL of Portland needs “livability”. ALL of Portland needs transit. Not just a favored little corner. Unfortunately our leaders fail to understand this.
Now, Chris, do you think you can actually address this post WITHOUT making personally directed comments?
Nick, the old urbanist wrote: I am a now a 0% supporter of trolleybuses (I revised my opinion of them–better then streetcars but still too inflexible)
One benefit of a trolleybus is that in the event of a blockage or a required re-route, trolleybuses have a limited capability of moving around.
A trolleybus can by itself move one lane in either direction, to pass a stopped car or for road construction. It cannot, however, pass another trolleybus without the disabled or stopped trolleybus dropping its trolley pole, or as follows.
Most trolleybuses (at least the ones in Seattle) also have a limited battery capacity. So, if an entire street is blocked, the bus can pull down the trolley poles and travel a distance of several blocks on battery power, at reduced speed.
And, Seattle used to use dual-mode trolley buses (with diesel engines); however these have been retired (some of the former dual-modes have been rebuilt as straight trolleybuses with the diesel engine removed). It would probably be easier today to make a dual-mode vehicle with hybrid technology, since the role of the diesel engine would simply be to generate electricity to power the motors or charge the batteries when not in straight-electric mode.
That said…there are still disadvantages to trolleybuses, being that you can’t just run them anywhere. It should be noted that in Seattle, which receives some 95% of its power from hydroelectric generation, its trolleybus fleet is much more carbon neutral than MAX/Streetcar will ever be…
So, we are building this great big streetcar loop that doesn’t really add transit to our region.
Whatever is done with the #6, I am certain that the impact of the Streetcar Loop will be a significant net increase in transit ridership. I am also certain that the per-capita carbon footprint of the region will be lower with the Loop than without.
Transit is a means, not an end.
So, we are building this great big streetcar loop that doesn’t really add transit to our region. Meanwhile, Fred Hansen sends a letter to TriMet employees outlying the cuts that are being made, including capital budget cuts which entirely affect the bus operation. How is that fair?
I agree that we should be finding additional revenue sources to keep the buses from getting cut back, a new streetcar won’t do as much good if there’s nothing feeding people to it. At the same time, the streetcar for some reason is definitely more popular with casual transit riders, at least from the people I’ve spoken to.
I’m sure there’s a lot of psychology behind it, but most people seem to have a perception that the streetcar is easier to use in some way. It has a fixed route, it runs in a loop, it’s easy to find, and it’s easier to remember what it runs near are all reasons people have given me for why they like it.
I bet we could get a lot of them to use a bus running with a streetcar shell, some painted “tracks” on the road, the arrival boards, shelters, etc. It would cost more for that route to do so, so wouldn’t you still have the same complaint that it was hurting other bus service?
Hotels and restaurants know that the streetcar and MAX are selling points for them. The new aloft Portland Airport at Cascade Station mentioned the MAX connecting them to downtown in every single press release I saw from them leading to their opening in September. Same for the Nines in downtown, mentioning how the MAX is right there. These businesses advertise it because it’s seen as a great amenity.
Buses don’t get that kind of press.
“And, Seattle used to use dual-mode trolley buses (with diesel engines); however these have been retired (some of the former dual-modes have been rebuilt as straight trolleybuses with the diesel engine removed). It would probably be easier today to make a dual-mode vehicle with hybrid technology, since the role of the diesel engine would simply be to generate electricity to power the motors or charge the batteries when not in straight-electric mode.”
>>>> Seattle, with its very steep hills, may have justification for trolleybuses on some routes. Here in Portland, regular buses can serve almost everywhere, even in the West Hills. (What a big laugh, when the news came out that there would be no streetcars in SW Portland!)
Anyway, hybrid buses, like the ones used in Seattle and by
C-Tran, have made both streetcars and trolleybuses obsolete. In fact, I was surprised at just how quiet the hybridC-Tran buses are.
Nick theoldurbanist Says:
Anyway, hybrid buses, like the ones used in Seattle and by C-Tran, have made both streetcars and trolleybuses obsolete. In fact, I was surprised at just how quiet the hybridC-Tran buses are.
I think the technology has a way to go, although I think the C-TRAN buses sure look ultramodern and I’m told they’re very quiet and comfortable to ride in. They also cost about $200K more than a diesel bus, and C-TRAN figures they’ll have to replace the batteries every 6-7 years. Fuel savings? C-TRAN reported an improvement from 5.2 mpg to 6.8 mpg.
Getting back on WES….
Colorado Railcar has ended operations.
http://www.coloradorailcar.com
ATTENTION: Effective December 23, 2008 Colorado Railcar Manufacturing ceased it’s business operations. Colorado Railcar Manufacturing has a major liquidity problem, and it’s lenders have a secured position in the assets of the company. The company is in the process of liquidation. The company has no employees effective December 31st, 2008.
Larry E. Salci
President & CEO
As for our Hybrid buses, they are decent but not good enough to eliminate the Streetcar or Light-Rail.
They are pathetic in the snow
They like to catch fire – We’ve had 8 bus fires involving the Hybrids, one which burned completely to the ground.
They don’t get that good of gas mileage over the D60LF’s. It is only a slight improvement. The D40LF’s get a good jump in mileage but again, prone to fire for whatever reason.
Whatever is done with the #6, I am certain that the impact of the Streetcar Loop will be a significant net increase in transit ridership. I am also certain that the per-capita carbon footprint of the region will be lower with the Loop than without.
How does the Streetcar loop help the region?
How does the Streetcar Loop help…oh, Tigard?
Brian Bundridge wrote: They are pathetic in the snow
My understanding was that the issue wasn’t the hybrid buses, it was articulated buses (which include the hybrids) were having difficulties on steep, icy hills (because the engine/driveaxle is on the articulated section of the bus, they simply jackknife going uphill and don’t have good control going downhill.)
Seattle has a large fleet of non-hybrid articulated buses – 274 D60HFs (diesel, high-floor), and a fleet of D60LFs (diesel, low floor) but Metro’s website incorrectly gives the hybrid information on the non-hybrid bus page. There are also 59 articulated trolleybuses (the Bredas).
They like to catch fire – We’ve had 8 bus fires involving the Hybrids, one which burned completely to the ground.
Not specific to hybrids. TriMet had a rash of bus fires not too long ago. TriMet’s 2400s (WorldTrans 3000 mini-buses) had a fire problem resulting in the premature retirement of most of that fleet, save for a couple vehicles for Washington Park Shuttle service.
TriMet’s lost a few D40LFs due to fires. There have been no fire issues with the two DE40LFs.
They don’t get that good of gas mileage over the D60LF’s. It is only a slight improvement. The D40LF’s get a good jump in mileage but again, prone to fire for whatever reason.
It’s also known that:
Seattle was running the hybrid buses initially on express routes which used the I-5/I-90 Express Lanes. Just like a Prius, a hybrid does very little benefit on the freeway. So, initial tests showed that the hybrid buses weren’t getting great results.
However, when the buses were put on regular stop-and-go local routes, mileage improved. (Just like a Prius.)
Secondly, even Metro’s website says that their DE40LF (40′ hybrid bus, identical to the two that TriMet owns) weren’t living up to expectations; but the articulated hybrids were doing much better. That’s why Metro announced that huge order for several hundred hybrid buses which received wide coverage within and outside the transit industry.
Certainly, if the hybrids weren’t as good as claimed, why would Metro go out and place orders for 600+ new buses – especially when the hybrid model adds 20-50% to the base cost?
Finally, if the DE40LFs were much better in the fuel economy department than D40LFs, then why did Metro say they won’t purchase anymore? In fact, the ONE DE40LF is currently in Sound Transit service, and even Sound Transit says that it’s not suitable for their use:
http://www.soundtransit.org/x4648.xml
Sound Transit bought one 40-foot diesel-electric hybrid and managed the coordination of a demonstration project with its regional transit partners. The bus rotated in three-month intervals with each participating agency. At the end of the demonstration period, it was evident that the seating capacity would not work for the type of commuter service Sound Transit provides. As a result, Sound Transit will not purchase more.
Seattle is a leader in using hybrid bus technology. Vancouver, BC is also a leader – Vancouver also has hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles in service. Snohomish County is running double-decker buses. Pierce County has a 100% CNG fleet. Even smaller communities like Spokane and Eugene are running high capacity articulated buses; Eugene and Vancouver (Washington) recognize the value of hybrid buses…
Portland, which claims to be a “leader” and “innovator”, can’t claim ONE thing with regards to bus service in which Portland is the innovator or a leader. In fact, according to TriMet’s own “awards and recognition” website, the last time TriMet was recognized by the transit industry for anything specific to bus service was a 3rd Place award in the Bus Roadeo in 2003.
…I think the C-TRAN buses sure look ultramodern and I’m told they’re very quiet and comfortable to ride in.
I can tell you from firsthand (albeit somewhat biased) experience that they’re very comfortable, and I’d go as far as to say they’re the most comfortable local transit buses in the region.
How does the Streetcar loop help the region?
By creating opportunities for low-carbon-footprint residential and employment locations, which increases transit mode-share vs. auto mode-share and decreases greenhouse gases and other air toxins.
How does the Streetcar Loop help…oh, Tigard?
Presumably Tigard shares in the regional benefits (e.g., people live in the Lloyd/Central Eastside instead of commuting through Tigard from further out).
But the real benefits for Tigard will come when it develops land use patterns (which transit can assist) which allow people to live and work without requiring a car for most of their trips.
How does the Streetcar loop help the region?
How does the Streetcar Loop help…oh, Tigard?
Who cares? It’s a Portland project, funded (local share) by Portland sources for the primary benefit of the people of Portland, and most specifically for the properties and businesses along the corridor that will see the most benefit. But folks from all over the region get to ride it with a Tri-Met pass or ticket when they come into town. And long-term, it may reduce the region’s overall air pollution and carbon footprint a bit.
So, we are building this great big streetcar loop that doesn’t really add transit to our region. Meanwhile, Fred Hansen sends a letter to TriMet employees outlying the cuts that are being made, including capital budget cuts which entirely affect the bus operation. How is that fair?
Different agencies. City vs. Tri-Met. Why should Portland back off on its streetcar investment because Tri-Met is having trouble with its budget?
That’s nice that one little corner of Portland is going to be “livable” but ALL of Portland needs “livability”. ALL of Portland needs transit. Not just a favored little corner. Unfortunately our leaders fail to understand this.
“Our leaders” seem to understand it pretty well. PDOT is looking into a city wide streetcar network. Since we can’t afford to build the whole system at once, it makes sense to start in the middle and work outward.
Back on topic: Now that Colorado Railcar has folded, where does that leave WES?
A secondary question: is there an longer-term opportunity for Oregon Iron Works to start building DMUs as well as streetcars? Or maybe for Freightliner to move into diesel railcars as well as trucks?
Doug – I would fully support Oregon Iron Works to start a DMU project. If the streetcar is a success, I would have full confidence that they could start a DMU project that is FRA-Compliant.
I’m not sure if this is factual or not but I’ve heard that the new Bombardier AGC DMU is or can be made FRA compliant but there is nothing on they’re website.
Chris Said: “And to specifically address the Streetcar Loop, I think the operative question is whether after the Loop goes into operation, TriMet will stop the #6 somewhere near Rose Quarter (interlining with the 70 is one idea that has been suggested) or continues it into downtown”
The primary reason to cut back on bus service is to stack the deck forcing people on to the streetcar so the ridership numbers look better to the Fed in an attempt to better position the streetcar for Federal funding. . .
Chris continued by saying: “We should have a robust public debate about that question, and ultimately do what’s best for the entire set of transit riders, not any one particular subset”.
What we should have is a robust planning effort involving the public that doesn’t start with a mode choice such as s streetcars, but looks to where there maybe a “genuine” need for increased transit infrastructure (not just for the purpose of replacing the automobile), and then study all options including trolley busses and motor busses comparing the benefits and costs with a cost-benefit analysis that is truly objective and not manipulated by one-sided bias politics and streetcar advocates. Furthermore, this study must also consider how a mode choice impacts congestion and other traffic using the same thoroughfare that includes, parking (which is important to small businesses), speed of the mode and whether or not the mode can get out of the way of and not obstruct other traffic when stopping for passengers.
Chris also said: Livability involves land use as well as transportation and it’s unmistakably true that transportation investments affect land use patterns in a major way. So in creating a 30-50 year vision, I’m not afraid to look at transportation investments that help re-shape land use patterns.
Livability is totally a non-quantified subjective term meaning different things to different people. Included in this subjectivity are individual transportation choices, taxes, lifestyles, housing choices, and density just to mention a few. Any changes in land use patterns must NOT be subsidized by taxpayers. Therefore, calling the streetcar an investment in change and/or a development tool is a farce. The taxpayers get pummeled thrice with streetcars: first with the high cost of construction: second, by having PDC often sell off sell public owned properties to developers at less than true value or at a loss, and then have the City hand out tax breaks and property tax abatements like free candy: and third, by having taxpayers subsidize the operational costs instead of the passengers footing the bill. Portland got rid of it streetcar system because it too was only a development tool, but privately funded. Once the land was developed where the streetcars were initially designed to serve, the streetcars were no longer cost effective and self sufficient. We need not be developing act two whereby the streetcars can not even financially support themselves from the very beginning.
Terry parker Says:
Any changes in land use patterns must NOT be subsidized by taxpayers.
Why?
Chris Smith wrote: By creating opportunities for low-carbon-footprint residential and employment locations
And how do other forms of transit – specifically, buses – not do this?
Presumably Tigard shares in the regional benefits (e.g., people live in the Lloyd/Central Eastside instead of commuting through Tigard from further out).
How does Tigard benefit when people live in downtown Portland instead of commuting through Tigard (on a state owned/maintained highway, so there is little to no direct cost to Tigard city itself) and potentially spending money at Tigard businesses or even living/working in Tigard?
Douglas K. wrote: It’s a Portland project, funded (local share) by Portland sources for the primary benefit of the people of Portland
It might be a Portland project but it uses regional transportation dollars. So, money that could be used for regional projects are going to a local project. So Tigard is actually disadvantaged by the Streetcar project; instead of the funds being used to improve 99W, or improve regional bus service, as two examples. (Even my proposed Portland-Tualatin MAX line would have a huge regional benefit including to Tigard, serving two Metro designated regional centers and one Metro designated two center within Tigard’s city limits).
Chris Smith wrote: But the real benefits for Tigard will come when it develops land use patterns (which transit can assist) which allow people to live and work without requiring a car for most of their trips.
Again, how does the Streetcar do this?
Tigard has the full right, this second, WITHOUT the streetcar, to zone its land however it wants. It could rezone downtown Tigard for high density, right now. It doesn’t need a Streetcar to do it. (And frankly, downtown Tigard is dead because of a lack of attention by the city, not because of a lack of a streetcar. Downtown McMinnville is a great example of a central business district that’s been revitalized in the last decade, and McMinnville has but a shell of a transit system. See http://www.newsregister.com/article/23840-snow-brings-flurry-shoppers )
Meanwhile, I can count two parking lots close to my work which border the existing Portland Streetcar line. A third lot was a restaurant that was torn down and seeded with grass. I walk along the Streetcar line from Naito Parkway to 4th Avenue and come across zero pedestrian-friendly businesses, just three pre-existing apartment buildings, a solid wall for an office building, and the side entrance to a PSU building.
Douglas K. wrote: PDOT is looking into a city wide streetcar network.
Let’s see the gaps in that “city-wide” streetcar network.
In Southwest, the only corridor is Barbur. That leaves communities like Hillsdale, Multnomah Village (ironically, itself a “streetcar suburb” and an excellent example of a detached business district that is extremely successful and popular today), Hillsdale, Garden Home (a community built by interurban railroad service) – untouched by streetcar service. Major transportation generators like PCC Sylvania are also left out.
In East, anything east of 122nd Avenue is completely ignored; along with the Rose City Park and Parkrose neighborhoods north of I-84.
The Division corridor is left untouched for any transit upgrades, despite being home to one of TriMet’s most frequently used bus routes, the 4-Division line. Division is also a major “mixed use” street with residential and commercial uses and connects multiple neighborhoods together.
In Northeast, the Cully neighborhood is prominently ignored; as well as the vast residential area between the Lloyd District and Alberta – including the successfully revitalized Fremont business district.
In North, only one line along Lombard (interestingly, a state highway) is planned; while areas along Columbia Boulevard (a divider between the residential neighborhoods to the south, and the industrial (job centers) neighborhoods to the north is left unserved; as well as areas to the north/west of St. Johns business district.
Also, the Linnton/Willbridge neighborhood is completely untouched.
If this is a “city wide” streetcar plan, there’s a lot of “city” that is not served. And, since these Streetcar lines will take decades (and hundreds of millions of dollars, if not into the billions) to build – what happens in the meantime? Does transit service simply decline – essentially, promoting the image that buses are poor quality? Or does Portland work to improve and encourage transit ridership (with buses) to build up demand for the Streetcar?
As for WES…considering that WES travels PAST two Metro designated Regional Centers without any service…clearly, there is a huge disconnect between land use planning and transportation planning. We could have improved the 76 line (which serves the two Regional Centers, plus three Town Centers and a Hospital) but once again, the true colors are shown that spending money on rail trumps improving bus service, even when it runs counter to the land-use argument.
How does Tigard benefit when people live in downtown Portland instead of commuting through Tigard (on a state owned/maintained highway, so there is little to no direct cost to Tigard city itself) and potentially spending money at Tigard businesses or even living/working in Tigard?
Traffic that passes through a community (as opposed to trips that originate or terminate in the community) is almost always detrimental, if for no other reason than it uses up capacity that is then not available to the community (but also for lots of other reasons).
But the real benefits for Tigard will come when it develops land use patterns (which transit can assist) which allow people to live and work without requiring a car for most of their trips. – Again, how does the Streetcar do this?
Streetcar has a track record, in conjunction with good land use planning and zoning, of attracting private development dollars to activate planned land use patterns (i.e., build to close to planned FAR). Bus routes simply do not attract private dollars in the same (BRT might be a different story, but BRT is not appropriate for the local circulation function provided by either the current Streetcar of the planned Loop.
Why, because people hold down jobs so they can earn a living to support themselves, their families and their choice of transport, housing and lifestyle, not to subsidize other people’s lifestyles and the greed of socialistic government fantasies. Any change in land use patterns needs to be financially self-sustainable where the developers make money due to the product provided, not by lining up and milking the public funding trough. The streetcar model is flawed and broken – first with taxpayers subsidizing the construction, then subsidizing creating a demand and finally subsidizing the ongoing operation. That is government extortion. Passengers need to be paying for the streetcars, not taxpayers.
Terry Parker Says:
Why, because people hold down jobs so they can earn a living to support themselves, their families and their choice of transport, housing and lifestyle, not to subsidize other people’s lifestyles and the greed of socialistic government fantasies.
Terry, I hate to break it to you, but taxation is the means by which a community (city, state, country) pays for services the community has decided it wants or needs. If your house is on fire, you don’t have to pay the fire company to put it out, and if you never have a fire in your house, you’re subsidizing all the people that do. And the people that call 911 for medical treatment.
Streets, sidewalks, transit systems — they work the same way. You pay for them whether or not you use them because the community decided we should do so. Labeling city planners as “socialist” just reveals that you don’t understand what that word means.
Help me understand something. Has anyone figured out why the Lloyd district has failed to grow in the same way as other areas in the central city such as the Pearl, SoWa, the West End, etc… This area has 5 minute or better MAX service, and an extensive bus network. What is the streetcar going to add that will make this the next hot spot that Max hasn’t been able to achieve.
Don’t get me wrong, I think the westside streetcar line is perfect in the way it pulls together different districts in downtown portland…and I can understand the success of it. But I’m just not seeing the same elements in play for the eastside.
Jeff Said: “taxation is the means by which a community (city, state, country) pays for services the community has decided it wants or needs.”
Not entirely true! There has yet to be a public vote on funding streetcars or implementing a bicycle tax, nor has a public vote even been considered City or State political circles. Therefore the community has not even had the opportunity to decide.
“Streets, sidewalks, transit systems — they work the same way.”
If they did work the same way, there would not be a gas tax, motor vehicle license and registration fees whereby motor vehicle road users pay for roads in addition to subsidizing bicycles and transit vehicles using the roads. If they did work the same way, a bicycle user tax, license and/or registration fee would pay for bicycle infrastructure and transit would be financially self-sustainable paid for by passenger/users. A socialist is a person who wants to control the choices of the people. In Portland and Oregon, socialism is being applied either by levying taxes and fees on specific activities, or the absence of taxes and fees on specific activities.
Terry Parker:
Not entirely true! There has yet to be a public vote on funding streetcars or implementing a bicycle tax, nor has a public vote even been considered City or State political circles. Therefore the community has not even had the opportunity to decide.
The community doesn’t vote on every single issue, Terry. The community selects members from the community to serve as governing bodies and those governing bodies determine the best use of public funds. They’re not always right, obviously, and when they’re wrong we have a system in place to either replace them or to change the decisions they’ve made.
A socialist is a person who wants to control the choices of the people.
No, Terry. A socialist is someone with very specific views on the control of the means of production and distribution. People who want to control other people’s choices are authoritarian or totalitarian, and they may be from the Left or the Right.
Take the time to read about Robert Moses and how he shaped New York. You’ll undoubtedly enjoy his preference for automobiles over public transit, but his urban planning had devastating results in the community he served. He took away choices of hundreds of thousands of people, with the best of intentions. Was Robert Moses a “socialist”?
There has yet to be a public vote on funding streetcars or implementing a bicycle tax, nor has a public vote even been considered City or State political circles. Therefore the community has not even had the opportunity to decide.
On the other hand, the people of Portland have consistently chosen politicians to represent them who have made no secret of their pro-bicycle, pro-transit agenda. If “the community” didn’t like these decisions, they’d have voted the current crop out years ago.
I am a now a 100% supporter of trolleybuses, 100% supporter of BRT/BUS, 100% supporter of Light Rails & Subway, and 70% supporter for Streetcars in Portland regional area, so I really like San Fransico had light rail, trolleybuses, and Streetcars, too nice! I really appreciated with other Trolleybuses supporters on Transport.com forum. I just enjoyed to read their opinion about transit modes in Portland Oregon, so I wish urging supporter of Trolleybuses should write letters to politicans for trolleybuses supports. I found out information that Utah – Salt Lake City goes considering about trolleybuses included Los Angeles (I do not sure). Let me know, did you get my message?
Notice: You have huge Happy Holidays!
About the whole Streetcar loop thing, I’m still not convinced that Portland’s trying to choose the best route and infrastructure for it.
Grand and MLK… Highway 99E… The only major throughfare in the inner-eastside… Traffic jams and back-ups? Oh yeah!
I want the streetcar to happen, but I don’t want to sit on some damn streetcar stuck in traffic! Learn from mistakes made with station platforms on the existing route, streetcars are delayed every day when a right-turning car holds up traffic as they wait for pedestrians to clear the crosswalk. Mid-block platforms would help alleviate those delays.
Choose a more efficient route, please!
Chris Smith wrote: Traffic that passes through a community (as opposed to trips that originate or terminate in the community) is almost always detrimental
The question is how to attract that traffic so it’s not just passing through, but contributing to the community. Frankly, Tigard has done a poor job with such – it’s main thoroughfare is 99W/Pacific Highway, but Tigard’s biggest “destinations” are not on 99W – Washington Square (about a mile north of 99W) and Bridgeport Village (partially in Tigard, and to the southeast). The “Tigard Triangle” which is bordered on one side by 99W has failed to develop. And Tigard’s Main Street offers very little, even to its own residents, in terms of any services.
Streetcar has a track record, in conjunction with good land use planning and zoning, of attracting private development dollars to activate planned land use patterns (i.e., build to close to planned FAR). Bus routes simply do not attract private dollars in the same
But it can’t be proven that streetcar is the reason for that; and in fact other areas of Portland that lack Streetcar service have seen same/similar benefits as the Streetcar neighborhoods. This fact is conveniently overlooked by Streetcar supporters.
As for bus not attracting the same development – when TriMet refuses to invest in quality bus service and bus stops, it’s no wonder. It’s no wonder that Metro ignores bus service altogether, and the City of Portland refuses to make improvements directly related to bus service.
Downtown Salem is seeing new development and growth with a new transit center at the center of it – Salem doesn’t have Streetcars. Seattle has a transit tunnel that has a number of developments that have direct access to the tunnel – imagine being able to walk out of a high-rise condo building, into a transit tunnel, to ride your bus to your destination, and into your work – all without leaving the tunnel – it’s possible. And of course Portland’s Transit Mall which attracted development and interest in downtown Portland, all without Streetcars.
If anyone can give an example of a bus route in Portland that was given the same level of attention as a Streetcar line and failed to develop (both ridership and development), let me know. But since it hasn’t been done or attempted, there is no comparison.
Erik Halstead Says:
But it can’t be proven that streetcar is the reason for that; and in fact other areas of Portland that lack Streetcar service have seen same/similar benefits as the Streetcar neighborhoods. This fact is conveniently overlooked by Streetcar supporters.
This is one point where I completely agree with Erik. In order to make claims about how streetcar achieves this and buses don’t, you need to have a direct comparison with as few variables as possible. In Portland, Streetcar was built through areas that were already developed, like downtown and NW Portland, or through areas that were heavily weighted in favor of development, like the Pearl.
I think the Skoda cars are pretty and Euro-looking, and there have been a few times when I found the service convenient. In general, however, I think it’s costly service that is almost entirely redundant. There are customers that complain because TriMet’s trip planner “never” puts them on Streetcar — that’s because most trips served by Streetcar are faster on a bus, and frequently more convenient on one end of the trip or another.
But it can’t be proven that streetcar is the reason for that
This claim seems dubious; the correlation between early-20th-century streetcar routes and development nodes is pretty strong. Of course, neighborhoods developed without streetcars too, but the presence of streetcar was undoubtedly a contributing factor. Further, the evidence of rail-oriented development exists in every city on earth with a history of rail transit.
The correlation between travel mode type and historic development patterns is equally evident for travel by foot, horse, boat, and car. I must admit, bus-oriented development is something I’ve never observed.
Unit Says:
This claim seems dubious; the correlation between early-20th-century streetcar routes and development nodes is pretty strong. Of course, neighborhoods developed without streetcars too, but the presence of streetcar was undoubtedly a contributing factor. Further, the evidence of rail-oriented development exists in every city on earth with a history of rail transit.
Chicken? Egg? How many of those early 20th century streetcars were built without development already in existence?
The correlation is flawed, anyway, because streetcars (and subways, et al) were the primary mode of transport, especially for public transportation, when they were originally planned and built. Few cars, very few buses, so naturally there was a connection at the time.
If you want a good example of rapid development without a streetcar, here in Portland, you only have to look at the Mississippi Avenue neighborhood. Ten years ago, it was a depressed, rundown neighborhood with empty buildings and low property values. Within the span of just a few years, the entire neighborhood was revitalized. Shops, restaurants, bars, and all sorts of businesses have appeared, along with a ton of customers. We could make the argument that this was a result of fine service on the 4-Fessenden, but transit had little to do with Mississippi. And, I’m pretty sure, without much in the way of incentives from the City.
Speaking of the beloved WES-
CRC is now:
asleep, bygone, cold, dead, deceased, departed, done for*, down the drain*, exanimate, expired, gone, had it, inanimate, inoperative, invalid, kaput*, late, lifeless, lost, nonexistent, obsolete, out of commission*, vanished
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/12/company_behind_trimet_wes_rail.html#preview
Where will replacement, warranty and maintenance come from for the Colorado Railcars?
Jeff said: “A socialist is someone with very specific views on the control of the means of production and distribution.”
That can be defined as the “production” of transport infrastructure and the “distribution” of tax dollars to pay for modes that are not directly taxed.
Jeff also said when referring to Robert Moses: “He took away choices of hundreds of thousands of people, with the best of intentions.”
This sounds more like the eco supremacists that continually rant about “getting people out of their cars”, and Sam Adams with his bias tax vendetta targeting motorists with excessive taxes and fees, and then subsidizing streetcars, transit and freeloading bicyclists.
Furthermore, when it comes to voting, people do not always agree with everything a candidate stands for when they vote for that candidate, do not always have a choice for another candidate with a difference of opinion, and well known candidates have a huge advantage over unknown candidates including when it comes to fundraising. Therefore with big spending issues and tax increases, a vote of the populace needs to be a prerequisite. Moreover, if anybody read the article in the “O” today “TriMet railcar supplier fails”, it was blatantly obvious that with new transit infrastructure sought after by the political community, it is taxpayer be d____d and full stream ahead to get what they are seeking at any expense. TriMet’s board of directors were not even briefed with information about the previous business ventures and failures involving the manufacturer Colorado Rail Car and its owner. The information was available but was withheld, and again we hear just excuses instead of accountability form management and the political arena.
That can be defined as the “production” of transport infrastructure and the “distribution” of tax dollars to pay for modes that are not directly taxed.
It _could_ be, but in common historical parlance it most certainly isn’t.
Terry tosses out a few other terms and phrases: eco supremacists … bias tax vendetta … and (as usual) freeloading bicyclists.
Terry: How about ratcheting the rhetorical flourishes back a notch and making calmer arguments and engaging in the discussion for a change? Redefining terms and constantly repeating pejorative slogans doesn’t actually win a debate, and it certainly doesn’t expand your base.
well known candidates have a huge advantage over unknown candidates including when it comes to fundraising.
Not in this local election… any serious candidate with grassroots support could have qualified for Voter-Owned-Elections funding. In fact, a non-incumbent, non-insider VOE candidate won a city council seat this cycle.
There were numerous candidates in the mayoral race. If you count all of the opponents together as representing some kind of “anyone but Sam” voting block, they still didn’t add up to a simple majority.
Terry Parker Says:
Jeff also said when referring to Robert Moses: “He took away choices of hundreds of thousands of people, with the best of intentions.”
This sounds more like the eco supremacists that continually rant about “getting people out of their cars”, and Sam Adams with his bias tax vendetta targeting motorists with excessive taxes and fees, and then subsidizing streetcars, transit and freeloading bicyclists.
It may sound that way to you, but it has nothing to do with either Robert Moses or your misuse of the word “socialist.” Why not address that?
How would you characterize Robert Moses?
Who the heck is Robert Moses?
This guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvWB8R8yqAA
That’s a good link Al, looks like the documentary was just posted there recently by the producer/director himself.
Well ya know me bob, I gotta have video!
Seems like a nice guy to me!
al m Says:
Well ya know me bob, I gotta have video!
Seems like a nice guy to me!
Perhaps this is evidence that video snapshots don’t quite capture reality. Short of reading Robert Caro’s book, you could just read the NYT obit. Or read the Wikipedia entry, which is pretty thorough.
“Perhaps this is evidence that video snapshots don’t quite capture reality.”
Actually, video is much better at capturing ‘reality’, no contest.
However, abstract thought maybe video is not the way to go, however watching and listening to the great thinkers speak their thoughts works much better for me.
As always, it comes down to personal preference.
For me, its video, for you it’s printing.
Actually, video is much better at capturing ‘reality’, no contest.
I’ll risk certain humiliation here and actually comment on something related to my degree (Broadcast Media Communication): Video as a medium is something which can be so easily distorted and manipulated that any sense of “reality” experienced should be highly suspect. But then, so is the written word.
As always, it comes down to personal preference.
That much is certain. :-)
Bob:
Change is directly taxing bicyclists to pay for all the construction (and maintenance) of specialized infrastructure. Change is adding a surcharge to transit fares to pay for the heavy damage TriMet’s two axle busses do to the roads. Change is charging transit fares that better reflect the actual fiscal costs of providing the service. Change in Portland is the elimination of Fareless Square. Change in Portland is demand first transit planning instead of (streetcar) mode first transit planning. Change is not expecting motor vehicle taxes and fees to subsidize other modes of transport.
Change in Portland is returning parking meter revenues to roadway maintenance funds instead of siphoning them off to fund streetcar operations. Change in Portland is not continually ranting about and spending tax dollars to “get people out of their cars”. Change in Portland is supporting infrastructure with increased capacity for motor vehicles. Change in Portland is not spending roadway dollars to super-size sidewalks. Change in Portland is providing bus turnouts on major thoroughfares, requiring busses to pull over to the curb on city streets, and eliminating congestion creating curb extensions, including not building any more of them. Change in Portland is maintaining the streets and roads before spending transportation dollars on new infrastructure, Change Portland is having Metro and PDOT citizen committees that have proportional representation from motorists (based on mode split), are not stacked decks comprised of the same ongoing usual subjects over and over again, and do not require a litmus test for membership. Change in Portland is NOT having a political mindset that continually promotes discrimination against motorists, including charging xcessive taxes fees and proposed tolls. Change in Portland is not attempting to use the Columbia River Crossing as a hammer and not telling the people in Clark County what their =land use policies should be.
Yes Bob, I support change – all of the afore mentioned!
Terry, when I said “for a change”, I did not mean that the topic of the discussion had to be about some particular kind of “change” politically, I meant that I hoped you would change your rhetorical style personally, to better-engage in the discussion here. As in: “try a new strategy for a change”.
Bob,
Just as rhetorical are statements like “getting people out of their cars”, and any other pointed and often repeated messages that are aimed at controlling lifestyles and personal mobility choices, through taxes or otherwise.
While repeated by some here, “getting people out of their cars” is a calm, clear, straightforward statement of a goal.
Phrases like “bias tax vendetta” and “freeloading bicyclists”, while conveying your feelings, nonetheless have a high degree of hyperbole, and in the case of the latter, are demonstrably false and do not contribute to the discussion when constantly repeated. You put stuff like that in nearly every comment you say, while rarely adding anything new.
Al, you got a good point about the Streetcar. Overall though, even though the capital outlay is more initially, in the end it will be cheaper than buses. Also, you are right, the number one thing that completely knocks the streetcar out of service is simply a parked vehicle that is out of alignment and the Portland Streetcar’s lacking response to tow the lousy bastards. So simply, things far less significant than the snow storm will knock out the streetcar, but ALL of them can be mitigated if the city just gets its job done.
There is however two major differences though between clearing the paths for buses and clearing the streetcar path.
The snow cost the city 2+ million dollars in snow removal. It was incapable from lack of equipment and personel to remove the snow, they did what they could with what they had, just like TriMet. No one in this area is prepared for the mess. But whatever the cost, it cost $2 million to deal with and zero to keep the streetcar running.
Even if the streets were NOT cleared the streetcars of yesteryear, on almost every route they used to run on would have worked through the entire storm. It would have take 2x (literally) more snow to stop the streetcar. The MAX would have run if they would/could merely keep the switches heated. It is far less to heat a few switches than it takes to plow streets.
Simply put, rail vehicles of any stripe can handle 2-3, or even 4 or 5x as much snow as rubber on road vehicles. On heavy rail, freight systems generally handle 10-30x as much snow as we had (unfortunately they too, sometimes get 30x more snow than Portland had).
Also, removing streetcar obtrusions, such as badly parked cars, nets the city and tow truck drivers cash revenue. So really, for the city they come out on top with additional streetcars and not additional buses.
Erik – Last note on this topic of streetcar vs. bus. I do believe the bus with the catenary i.e. trolley bus would be GREAT! Getting rid of the diesel aspect of buses would make me extremely happy, along with I’m sure every single person that has gotten sick from the belckin, puking, disgusting beat up ole’ diesel buses we have. I believe Portland is the last large north west city to keep running these things. Seattle, Tacoma, and other areas all have hybrids that burn clean fuels (like natural gas). However there is one problem, and this would affect a LOT of TriMet Riders.
The thousands of technology workers that will only ride the MAX or Streetcar won’t ride a bus. Those same thousands, who pay by far the largest amount of funds into the coffers of Portland’s tax bucket, will not ride buses. They can’t work on those buses (generally), they don’t like them, and they don’t enjoy being around or associating with them much. But as I said they will ride the MAX & Streetcar. I’ve seen these people and work with them every day. Sure, some of us tech workers that are more reliant (and dig riding) the transit system in general will get on whatever vehicle. But fact is, I’ll take a light rail or streetcar seat to my destination anyday over the bus for the simple fact that it is 10x easier to work on a laptop.
…and when it comes down to money to those city coffers, those are the people they want because those tech workers, or creative types as they often call them, pay TONS in taxes. Matter of fact that measly dozen percent or so of the population probably pays almost as much as the entire other 80-90% of the population.
…SUMMARY…
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m all for better bus routes. I’d rather not see another diesel bus for my entire life, but I’ll be back on a bus tomorrow I’m sure. But if the city can manage to continue the growth of the creative class, and thus the monies that pays for the betterment of the city, they do need to focus on streetcars and light rail right now. This of course, puts them in juxtaposition with TriMet, who’s job is supposed to serve the largest amount of riders possible. TriMet however is under the control of the city, being a Republic we the citizens don’t actually get a direct say.
Anyway, just some things to consider when thinking about how expensive rail is (when really after 20 years, it’s cheaper than bus service – such as the original alignment finished in 86 – we’re now in the cheap era for that segment, what was it $150 million or something?)
Adron wrote: Overall though, even though the capital outlay is more initially, in the end it will be cheaper than buses.
That hasn’t proven true, TriMet runs a number of bus lines that have lower boarding costs than the Streetcar.
Of course, if the capital and deprecation costs were actually amortized into the boarding costs, and financing costs were allocated to the mode, bus would win hands down (since many of TriMet’s buses are fully depreciated and don’t require bonding authority to replace, there is zero capital cost after a bus is on the road for 12 years, and zero interest expense.) TriMet’s current accounting model requires bus riders to pay for MAX capital costs.
But whatever the cost, it cost $2 million to deal with and zero to keep the streetcar running.
Yes, the Streetcar did a good job in the snow.
BUT…there wasn’t “zero” cost. As the streetcar continued to run, it actually created a traffic hazard for motorists (and buses). On one particular day, the section of Harrison between 1st and Naito was actually blocked off by City of Portland crews trying to clear the road, since vehicles continuing on Harrison have to get into the same lane as Streetcars where extremely hazardous ruts had formed.
Further, at 4th and Harrison, I wish I had one of Al’s videocameras with me that day. It was like watching TriMet buses going off-roading in the Mount Hood National Forest, navigating over and around the ruts formed by the Streetcar. Nobody ever bothered to clear the intersection and even after much of the road was passable at the 20 MPH speed limit, that intersection continued to require vehicles to cross through at a walking pace.
The thousands of technology workers that will only ride the MAX or Streetcar won’t ride a bus.
I wonder how many Intel employees at the Aloha campus ride transit. Considering that until Westside MAX was constructed, the 88 line literally was a Downtown Portland-Intel bus route, and even operated with artics.
I also don’t know of many “tech” jobs on the Streetcar route… But there are quite a few tech jobs in Wilsonville whose businesses support a growing bus system; there are quite a few business centers in Washington County connected only by bus — I believe that if we actually invested in the bus system properly, that it would encourage ridership. Accepting the bus stereotype is not what Portland should be about. There was once a time when streetcars had a very negative image…
they do need to focus on streetcars and light rail right now.
In other words, let’s forget about the 65% of TriMet riders who ride the bus. Let’s make riding the bus so miserable, that they’d rather drive a car. That’s the wrong direction to go. It’s the wrong direction to deny transit access to a huge percentage of Portland to favor a select few…we wouldn’t treat any other government service the same way so why do we treat transit that way?
how expensive rail is (when really after 20 years, it’s cheaper than bus service
Not necessarily. Remember, TriMet bus riders are forced to subsidize MAX construction costs. And it’s TriMet which chooses to make bus service more expensive than necessary – using low capacity buses instead of high capacity buses – the 72 bus could serve the same passengers with 30% less fuel and labor cost, as one example; entering into a fuel hedge that means TriMet pays 50% more fuel than I can at Jubitz up in north Portland – and my price includes fuel tax (which TriMet is exempt from); and relies on outdated buses which require more maintenance (and more maintenance expense).
TriMet claims that it has one of the most fuel-efficient fleets in the nation, but why does C-Tran get a whole mile-per-gallon more than TriMet does (which equates to 20% better fuel economy fleet-wide)?
Bob said: “Phrases like “bias tax vendetta” and “freeloading bicyclists”, while conveying your feelings, nonetheless have a high degree of hyperbole”
Obviously then, these phrases are working. They are giving bicyclists a conscious and making people aware of who is actually financially supporting alternative forms of transport, motorists – not the users. I couldn’t make these types of statements if bicyclists were taxed and paid license and registration fees; and if transit fares covered a significantly greater share of the costs of providing the service.
Terry Parker Says:
Bob said: “Phrases like “bias tax vendetta” and “freeloading bicyclists”, while conveying your feelings, nonetheless have a high degree of hyperbole”
Obviously then, these phrases are working.
Terry, please go look up the definition of “hyperbole”. In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. ” Just like you keep using the word “socialism.”
If the people in the region did not support transit and bicycles and sustainability — we would not have the elected officials we have.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Inconceivable!