Click map for full-size version |
The Metro Council recently adopted a list of High Capacity Transit corridors meriting further study in developing the new regional high capacity transit plan:
Metro Council advances 15 priority areas for possible transit investments
Corridors chosen will help improve region’s communities by increasing transportation optionsThe Metro Council voted today to approve further evaluation of 15 transportation corridors for future investments in light rail, commuter rail, bus rapid transit or rapid streetcar. The corridors are spread throughout the region and will be part of Metro’s Regional High Capacity Transit System Plan. The Plan is a 30-year approach to prioritizing investments in new transportation corridors as well as changes to existing corridors, and is being developed as a component of the federally mandated Regional Transportation Plan.
The 15 areas were narrowed from a broad list of 55 proposed corridors, which Metro developed with region-wide engagement from residents, businesses, community organizations and local elected leaders. The HCT corridors are also coordinated with the City of Portland’s developing Streetcar System Plan, TriMet’s Transit Investment Plan (FY 08), the South Metro Area Regional Transit (SMART) Master Plan and the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council’s HCT plan.
“This region’s foresight to plan and then invest in high capacity transit has clearly been a cornerstone of our quality of life,” said Metro Councilor Carlotta Collette. “In fact, ridership on the existing regional high capacity transit system has continually increased. The system has helped promote sustainable communities and has improved mobility and accessibility without increasing reliance on single occupancy vehicles.”
The corridors selected for further evaluation best fit the criteria of expected ridership, cost, environmental constraints, social equity, transit connectivity, traffic congestion and regional 2040 Growth Concept land uses. Funding and specific modes have not yet been designated for any particular corridor.
The Council also adopted a set of criteria to prioritize the 15 selected corridors. These criteria are based on community, environment, economic and deliverability measures.
A system-wide examination of a regional high capacity transit system was last completed in 1982. This plan has resulted in nearly 90 miles of light rail, commuter rail and streetcar being built and/or planned for construction by 2016.
Metro, the regional government that serves 1.4 million people who live in the 25 cities and three counties of the Portland metropolitan area, provides planning and other services that protect the nature and livability of our region.
59 responses to “Metro Pares HCT Study Corridors”
Nice mix. Some LRT, some BRT and/or express bus, some commuter rail, and one token “Rapid Streetcar” line to Lake Oswego.
If Tri-Met could budget for operating funds, we could see probably half the proposed system (buses on corridors 10, 16, 17, 28/8, 32, 54/13) up and running in a couple of years, and a Clackamas-Sherwood commuter rail segment (29/38) not long after.
That would leave just a handful of light rail projects to finish off the proposed system.
I do wonder about the proposed 43C/D. That looks like a commuter rail line, but it only runs as far as North Portland.
I do wonder about the proposed 43C/D. That looks like a commuter rail line, but it only runs as far as North Portland.
I find that odd, too, I think it was part of the proposal for Clark County commuter rail. At the same time, may of the same people say “CRC has to happen!,” when the map shows it’s extremely clear there are other options. (I’m not trying to turn this into yet another ‘CRC yes/no re-hash’ discussion. So, please don’t.)
At the same time, many of the corridors on the map have absolutely no transit service on them today, or the service that runs near it is split between several different bus lines with varying frequency, capacity, and days of operation.
The 29 is interesting… Clackamas Town Center to Beaverton via Milwaukie & LO, clearly this is commuter rail.
So is 11T, having the Barbur route run in a tunnel to serve OHSU and Hillsdale (and maybe Multnomah Village). this is a great idea.
i’m just as puzzled by the 43C/D too as well as the 54A/B/C, would the freight tracks along I-84 make more sense for a commuter rail line than going thru all industrial areas in north portland? the I-84 tracks could have a station at 82nd ave right next to the max station.
why not a yellow line branch to st. johns running down lombard?
i’m also wondering why the springwater corridor was never considered, i realize theres the path there now but rail and trail could easily work together on that corridor.
isnt 34A/B/C/D/E the entire WES route? what would this proposal be?
looks to me like max extensions to forest grove, troutdale, oregon city (from milwaukie and clackamas), max line on barbur, brt on powell to gresham and tv hwy from beaverton to hillsboro, commuter rail from clackamas town center to beaverton or washington square and another commuter rail branch to sherwood from clackamas, portland to troutdale commuter rail via north portland, highway bus service between oregon city and tualatin, either lrt or brt to tanasbourne from either sunset tc or orenco. its hard to say about the damascus routes and about damascus as a city in general.
why not a yellow line branch to st. johns running down lombard?
Lombard is a very likely corridor to emerge as a recommendation in the Streetcar System Plan process.
Can anybody explain 42A?
29B through 29E don’t follow any major arterials or freeways. So rail service there should be faster than private vehicles even outside of peak commute hours. We know that about 10,000 trips a day are made over the Sellwood and through Lake Oswego. Thousands more Sellwood crossers travel on Taylors Ferry avoiding downtown Portland. An unknown number loop north on 26 or south on I-205 and could save a lot of time using this corridor. Therefore frequent service throughout the day should be the goal.
It may even be worthwhile to jump through all the hoops to make it MAX rather than WES. Of course, a Milwaukie MAX extension into Lake Oswego would be faster and more convenient than the streetcar for most riders. We couldn’t have that, could we?
29A would tentatively be on busy UP tracks, so it’s a bit different. If frequent rail service is warranted in that corridor we’d almost certainly have to build new sets of tracks.
It will be interesting.
54A looks like an attempt to run commuter rail on Union Pacific’s Kenton Line, which is very heavily used by freight trains.
Given the almost near opposition to running commuter rail between Portland and Salem on the superior Union Pacific route for the sole reason that it’s owned by Union Pacific, I’m amazed that it’s a “preferred” corridor, unless Metro intends to run another light rail line (which doesn’t connect with anything – both the Red and Yellow Lines would pass well above it), or a BRT line (which Metro is almost insistent against).
I agree that 43C/D make no sense as a standalone corridor.
29A makes no sense, but 29 B/C/E and 38S is practically ready-made for a commuter rail line using non-FRA compliant vehicles (can you say: Bombardier Talent or Siemens Desiro) as a diesel extension to MAX. (Such vehicles would be prohibited on the 29A segment).
11T seems to be another example of Metro coming up with ways to spend a ton of money, for a questionable cause. It’d make more sense to put I-5 in a tunnel (eliminating the Terwilliger Curves and opening up the land for redevelopment or return to a natural state) than to build a light rail tunnel.
And why is 34A-E still on the map?
Sadly, the “regional centers” are lagging quite far behind similar ones in other cities around the country.
It looks like 11C avoids Hillsdale and Multnomah Village, one of the few pedestrian-friendly outposts in SW Portland. Hint: if density is going to happen anywhere, its at existing pedestrian-friendly areas.
I agree with Erik. 11T looks like the definition of pork barrel, might as well make it another tram. The region could much better be served by 32C or a Multnomah route. It is unfortunate that SW and the neighborhoods due to be annexed by Beaverton are continuously passed over in this regard, aside from Barbur of course.
well you could keep the barbur route on barbur blvd between portland and burlingame, but you’d be serving little more than a forest. or you could go with the tunnel option and serve the city’s largest employer (with direct tram connection) and a “town center” provided by fast service. if it stays on barbur blvd in this stretch there is no connection to the ohsu tram.
i’d love to see the old Oregon Electric or Red Electric routes re-activated to serve those SW neighborhoods but there is little left of those routes that hasnt been taken over by wided roads or new development. considering the amount of development in this area now and the hilly terrain these old routes would have been really the only options for any new major transit routes in this area. Barbur is one of the few routes in this corridor with any space for a major transit line and even so it would reduce much of the street capacity, which may or may not be workable.
i’m starting to think the word “pork” is becoming more over-used and blindly thrown around than the word “sustainable”.
Can anybody explain 42A?
Looks like someone was contemplating another bridge, and then bagged the idea.
I used to like the 11T concept, but I don’t see much value to it now. I get the benefits of serving the OHSU main campus with light rail — that’s a huge trip generator — but you could do the job almost as well by running MAX along Barbur and putting an automated funicular railway from Barbur to OHSU at Gibbs, right under the aerial tram.
My guess as to 34A-E is that it contemplates expanding WES to full-day frequent service, with freight running mostly at night. But that’s just a guess.
I took 54A/B/C to be a BRT line rather than rail because it crosses the St. Johns Bridge.
Looking at the map, I can see three long BRT corridors, which I’ll call Brown, Tan and Gray.
Brown Line: Gresham TC to Hillboro TC. 16B, 16A, 8, 28A/B, 34D/C/B/A (probably on 217, with a stop at Washington Square), 32A.
Tan Line: Gresham TC to downtown. 13, 54 A/B/C, 43C.
Gray Line: Gresham TC to Hillsboro TC.10B/A, Sunset, 17A/C, Cornell Road to Hillsboro TC.
Almost nobody would ride any of those lines end-to-end, but there should be a lot of traffic along particular segments.
but you could do the job almost as well by running MAX along Barbur and putting an automated funicular railway from Barbur to OHSU at Gibbs, right under the aerial tram.
I can’t resist this opportunity to acknowledge the foresight of Jim Howell and others who suggested that, instead of building a tram, we build an automated people-mover subway (think airports) with stops and elevators at OHSU and Barbur… allowing connections to be served which the Tram (although well-patronized) skips over.
jon:
Fair enough. My main concern would be the entrances of the tunnel, I see no feasible spot at least in the west side, aside from maybe near or under the bertha/capitol/bhh intersection. I’m by no means anti-tunnel (gotta breach the west hills somehow), but I would like to see a more detailed map of its route.
I love reading about the Red Electrics, it seems to make me nostalgic for a time period I never lived in. If these or similar service existed today, there is no doubt in my mind they would be a significant piece of the transit system. This, as far as I know, is the current plan for the route, which I fully support:
http://www.portlandonline.com/PARKS/index.cfm?c=44562
and i wouldnt say i’m necessarily pro-tunnel but i’d like to hear more about it and especially costs as well as whether a multnomah village station is feasible enough to be included in a study. i think the tunnel is a very intriguing idea, i first dismissed it as a pie-in-the-sky idea that would never happen when i heard of it but the more i look at it, it seems very attractive. bored tunnels like the robertson tunnel arent all that expensive especially when compared to subways. the robertson tunnel was something like $50-60 million/mile (including the washington park station) which is about the same per mile cost as surface LRT.
yeah a tunnel portal would be a big issue, i was thinking it would surface closer to barbur blvd. i’d guess they’d buy some property along side barbur and have it surface there and then have the tracks merge into the center of barbur.
its really sad that we threw away these private fast electric transit systems (and after only 20-30 years of service too). what really gets me is that 80-100 years ago we had transportation networks that we dream of today… sure doesnt sound like progress to me.
carless in pdx wrote: It looks like 11C avoids Hillsdale and Multnomah Village, one of the few pedestrian-friendly outposts in SW Portland. Hint: if density is going to happen anywhere, its at existing pedestrian-friendly areas.
Benjamin B. wrote: I agree with Erik. 11T looks like the definition of pork barrel, might as well make it another tram.
jon wrote: i’d love to see the old Oregon Electric or Red Electric routes re-activated to serve those SW neighborhoods but there is little left of those routes that hasnt been taken over by wided roads or new development.
See: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=105939017853465830090.0004548a6ed6a75b5acdf&z=11
I have long proposed a MAX line which would serve Southwest Portland, would provide direct service to Multnomah Village, Garden Home, the Washington Square Regional Center, downtown Tigard and downtown Tualatin – which would meet and connect far more Metro Regional Centers and town centers than any other proposal for the region. It would essentially duplicate the old Oregon Electric Railroad route (although it’d use Barbur Boulevard into downtown Portland which is the Red Electric alignment – the OE used what’s now I-5), would provide a net increase of transit service, use existing corridors (many designed for the OE), and would compliment existing bus service.
Unfortunately, WES was built (result: decrease of service over the proposal), and Metro wants another pork-barrel tunnel with an insanely expensive tunnel/elevator for OHSU, a hospital that under current planning should have never been built where it is.
Instead of building expensive transportation to a poorly situated hospital, we should be talking about moving OHSU to a more sustainable, more accessible location. Since SoWa isn’t developing the way it was intended, maybe it ought to just move down there and eliminate the Marquam Hill campus.
A relatively short tunnel would serve OHSU…the region’s only research institution, then its Barbur to Tigard. Not sure Hillsdale/Multnomah have or want to have the density that MAX needs to work. I like a Capital Hwy Streetcar from MAX at Bertha to MAX at West Portland.
Not likely, but it would be fun to visit my old stomping gounds in Streetcar.
See: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=105939017853465830090.0004548a6ed6a75b5acdf&z=11
I really like the idea of getting more service on that route, but other than the part south of Washington Square it looks like it would work better as a streetcar route than a MAX route.
If MAX is supposed to really mean Metropolitan Area Express, we should consider the tunnel option as an express route. If I-5/99W can get MAX running along it, then a streetcar from that MAX line over to Washington Square/the WES, seems like a good plan.
All the better if we can tie that Streetcar to the Lake Oswego plan, but I have a feeling the grade is way to steep to allow a streetcar to go from the river up to Barbur.
How does “adopted a list of High Capacity Transit corridors meriting further study in developing the new regional high capacity transit plan” get changed into “Metro wants another pork-barrel tunnel” or “another example of Metro coming up with ways to spend a ton of money, for a questionable cause”?
Do you know what kind of work has gone into narrowing down these corridors? Do you know how much public involvement has ALREADY gone into this? And wouldn’t the purpose of having corridors narrowed down for study be to begin to get the data that you guys want?
This is just a plan. This is just a “we should look further into this”.
It is not a project with funding or bond votes. It is not a “we will build this and nothing else” type scenario. It is not a promise, or even a threat.
They did not release this plan followed by maniacal laughter and twisting of mustaches.
Although that would have been pretty cool to see.
Sometimes I think people forget that Metro are _elected_. Freely elected. By us. And Metro has the most involved, thorough and inclusive public involvement policies and methods of any branch of government I have ever seen. Why all the Metro hate?
Lenny Anderson wrote: A relatively short tunnel would serve OHSU
At least one mile is not “relatively short”. Google Earth shows the shortest tunnel route, from the south end of Duniway Park, to Barbur Boulevard near the Rasmussen Village Apartments, at just over one mile. And still very, very expensive.
Dave wrote: I really like the idea of getting more service on that route, but other than the part south of Washington Square it looks like it would work better as a streetcar route than a MAX route.
If you look at the station locations I pointed out, they are at the same intervals as existing MAX service.
It should be noted that for those who feel that running a MAX line down Barbur Boulevard that wouldn’t serve anything, there is a 1.4 mile distance between Goose Hollow and Washington Park, and 3.2 miles from Washington Park to Sunset TC, and 2 miles from Sunset TC to Beaverton TC. If MAX down Barbur makes no sense, then why do similar distances on the Westside MAX line without service stops make sense?
Southwest Portland had service from two interurban routes (the Oregon Electric and Red Electric) and neighborhoods reflect this; streetcar service simply doesn’t make sense in Southwest and even the City of Portland acknowledges this, by eliminating Southwest from the City Streetcar plan to the extent that the City is refusing to plan for any form of transit, bus included. A light rail route replicating the former Oregon Electric service, with stop spacing of one-to-two miles, is consistent with other MAX lines in the region and allows low-cost neighborhood bus service to connect residential areas to the business centers where a MAX stop would be located.
It should also be noted that there are people that want MAX extended to Forest Grove and Cornelius; yet the population of Tigard and Tualatin far exceed the Forest Grove/Cornelius populations; so a MAX line not making sense to Tualatin would seem to also suggest that MAX to Forest Grove would equally make no sense. And Washington Square is a Metro designated Regional Center.
John Reinhold wrote: Do you know what kind of work has gone into narrowing down these corridors? Do you know how much public involvement has ALREADY gone into this?
With all due respect, I went to one of these Metro High Capacity Transit planning meetings (in Tigard) and it was quite, quite obivious that it was skewed towards rail-based transit, light rail transit, and in fact the Metro facilitator at my table actually was taken aback when I had to correct her about the role of bus service in Tigard after she made a grossly inaccurate statement that bus service in Portland is simply neighborhood service (she apparently must have driven her own way to Tigard Library, as I took the 12 bus – clearly NOT a neighborhood route).
The fact is that Metro’s own planning documents all but refuse to acknowledge the role of TriMet bus service in the region towards regional transit options, and transportation investment plans refuse to invest in the bus system – it’s as if Metro would rather have people drive single-occupant vehicles than ride a bus. This is unlike most major metropolitan areas which are investing in quality bus transit in addition to other forms of transit such as light rail, commuter rail, etc.
The fact that Metro includes “streetcar” as “high capacity transit” but doesn’t include frequent service bus service with enhanced bus vehicles (i.e. “BRT Lite”) shows a clear bias in the halls of Metro towards what they want.
As for Metro being an “elected body”, anyone can look at the votes tallied for Metro councilors compared to other offices and see that not only are the choices for Metro councilors very limited (and tend to be pro-Metro anyways), but that few voters actually even bother with voting for Metro councilors. Yes, maybe that is the fault of voters, but it is in my eyes a view that the voters have little confidence in Metro.
Judging from the reception I got at the High Capacity Transit meeting, I see no reason to change my views. If anyone feels that I’m in the wrong, please have my Metro councilor contact me and I’d love to have a discussion. (Wait, every time that Rex Burkholder posted a post here and I questioned him, he disappeared into his rabbit hole instead of wanting to face the music about his views about bus service.)
The fact that Metro includes “streetcar” as “high capacity transit” but doesn’t include frequent service bus service
Metro includes “RAPID streetcar” and “Bus RAPID transit” on the list, but not “frequent” bus or “frequent” streetcar. The map shows no preference for either mode.
In fact, the map betrays a clear pro-bus bias by planners, since only one corridor on the map is likely to be served by streetcar, and at least eight corridors would almost certainly be served by BRT.
Metro’s High Capacity Transit Plan team is happy to see the robust discussion about the planning process. We hope that you will take the time to participate in the process to prioritize corridors beginning in late March or early April. You will be able to review findings and provide input to us through the project web site or by attending a meeting. The final plan will be reviewed by the Metro Council and will ultimately be adopted as part of the Regional Transportation Plan.
We also wanted to clarify a couple of things that have been discussed:
Douglas K. wrote: In fact, the map betrays a clear pro-bus bias by planners, since only one corridor on the map is likely to be served by streetcar, and at least eight corridors would almost certainly be served by BRT.
WRONG.
From West to East:
Corridor 12 (Forest Grove-Hillsboro) is favored to be MAX, although some want a commuter rail service (a la WES). Despite an excellent opportunity for bus service, it is not being remotely considered (note the map shows the line well above T.V. Highway, on the Oregon Electric railroad route.)
Corridor 32A (Hillsboro-Beaverton) is strictly being considered as an extension of WES to Hillsboro, period.
Corridors 17A, 17C and 17D are take-offs of MAX. There have been calls for a MAX spur along Corridor 17D; and 17A is an extension of MAX. While it’s remotely possible that BRT could be considered, it is unlikely.
Corridors 34A-34E IS WES.
Corridors 11A-11E is widely favored for MAX service, or potentially Streetcar (Metro’s preferred solution). Local opposition towards light rail in this corridor has resulted in the City of Portland removing this area from future transit planning.
Corridor 38S, along with 29A-C, is along the Portland & Western Railroad Tillamook and Westside (Newberg) Branches, and is certain to be an extension of WES.
Corridor 28B could potentially be bus rapid transit.
Corridors 8 and 9 have already been considered as WES extensions from Clackamas Town Center and Milwaukie to serve Oregon City.
Corridor 16A has long been considered a future MAX route.
Corridor 16B could potentially be BRT.
Corridor 10A/B is being considered as a Streetcar route.
Corridor 13 could be BRT or Streetcar.
Corridors 43C/D and 54 A-C are considered as commuter rail with potential for growth to Vancouver and Hood River (can you say “sprawl”!??).
So, of the corridors, only FIVE of them are even remotely being considered as BRT, with the remaining corridors near-exclusively being rail based options.
If anyone at Metro wants to prove me wrong, I challenge them to issue a resolution for the “immediate construction of a BRT corridor on Barbur Boulevard from Portland to Sherwood, with construction to commence as quickly as possible, and the immediate purchase of new high capacity buses with absolute priority”.
After all, the bailout of Colorado Railcar didn’t even need a board resolution.
Metro HCT Plan Team wrote: The evaluation criteria are broken into four categories: community, environment, economy and deliverability
The problem is that Metro’s own criteria unfairly knocks bus service for “community” because of an assumption that people will just favor Streetcar service (never mind that most of the personal bias against bus service isn’t because “it’s a bus”, but because the existing level of bus service is handicapped due to a lack of investment – when bus improvements have been made in other cities, bus ridership grew dramatically and was well received even by new transit users); and for “environment” because light rail uses electricity (but doesn’t count the fact that the vast majority of Portland’s power generation mix comes from natural gas and coal, NOT hydro-electric has is common misconception. (In Seattle, it should be noted that >95% of its power generation IS hydroelectric; and Seattle uses this cheap hydropower to help power its extensive trolleybus system.)
Again, I challenge Metro to take an immediate step to fund bus service improvements. If bus ridership goes down, fine, I’ll eat my words, but it has been proven in city after city that if you invest in bus service, people WILL ride it. Seattle has seen huge bus ridership increases because they invest in the system – new buses, new amenities (like wi-fi on the buses), express services, improved stops…
Metro, on the other hand, has not made any commitment towards regional bus investments, saying that “It’s TriMet’s problem”. Metro is a regional government yet it seems to have no problem involving itself in the non-regional City of Portland Streetcar – my bus line is certainly more “regional” – covering five cities (Sherwood, Tualatin, King City, Tigard, Portland) and two counties (Washington, Multnomah) just on the Barbur Boulevard portion of the route, plus an additional three cities (Fairview, Wood Village, Gresham) on the Sandy Boulevard portion of the route – that’s more cities covered than the entire MAX system (four – Gresham, Portland, Beaverton, Hillsboro.)
Please, prove me wrong. By the way, my employer isn’t going to pay me not to show up for work for ten years for a light rail line to start construction, so unless Metro has plans to hire me on the government payroll not to work, I’d like to see real change happen now.
Erik,
While your comments are very often insightful, it seems as if you are attempting to shout out other perspectives on this issue with your multiple posts and some pretty outlandish statements… (if you would like me to specify i could do so quite easily with a few cut n pastes)
Just as you advocate, BRT *is* being considered for these corridors. To suggest that any alternative to BRT or regular buses would be some sort of failure or, possibly, a pork-barrel conspiricy isnt realistic or positive discussion.
With the Barbur Corridor in particular, you seem to be suggesting that MAX (with or w/o a tunnel) would be a boondoggle… I think we need realistic cost estimates on that corridor in order to compare BRT with MAX. It may very well turn out that a MAX with tunnel has a similar cost to full on BRT.
For what its worth, I think many people here agree with you that the bus system is an important transportation component, and that it often gets short changed because of newer, sexier options.
I was looking at the City of Tigard website for another reason, when I came across their 2009 City Council Goals:
1. Implement Comprehensive Plan
c. Continue to lobby for light rail in 99W Corridor
So, Tigard as a political body/voice wants light rail.
Carry on.
My guess would be citizens of Burlingame, Multnomah and West Portland would want MAX, not BRT, as well in the Barbur corridor, not out Multnomah Blvd. Barbur is ugly from Terwillinger to Capitol Hwy; rebuilding it like Interstate would be a big improvement with stations at OHSU (in tunnel), Burlingame, SW19th, SW 30, Capitol Hwy, etc. and on to Tigard, the south to Kruse Woods.
Barbur is just one mess of strip mall after strip mall. I lived in the area for a few years (not anymore) and would rather see MAX through Hillsdale and Multnmah Village.
At least it would serve some destinations that people would actually want to go visit, instead of the Boom-Boom Room. Which is about all that Barbur has to offer.
Tunnel in that corridor would be worth it. HCT should be serving the regional and town centers, not strip corridors ten feet from the freeway, particularly with all the benzene pollution in high concentrations near it.
Are we TRYING to get people sick?
nate wrote: It may very well turn out that a MAX with tunnel has a similar cost to full on BRT.
So, what you’re telling me, is that striping two lanes of Barbur Blvd. between I-405 and Bertha Boulevard as BRT lanes, installing a few enhanced bus stops, replacing traffic signals, and purchasing new buses, might cost as much as a tunnel?
The West Hills (Robertson) Tunnel came in at a cost of $29.7 million per mile.
I’ve already estimated that a “BRT-Lite” corridor along the ENTIRE ROUTE of Barbur Boulevard/Highway 99W from downtown Portland to Sherwood would come in at $25 million (including costs of new buses, new bus stops, sidewalk and traffic signal improvements).
I can’t imagine that it’ll cost $60 million to restripe a couple of lanes for exclusive BRT service between I-405 and Bertha…or even all the way to I-5 (at Tigard). I-5 to Tigard TC will cost more, only because you can’t reduce highway capacity at that point.
Lenny Anderson wrote: My guess would be citizens of Burlingame, Multnomah and West Portland would want MAX, not BRT, as well in the Barbur corridor, not out Multnomah Blvd.
Funny, since I live in this neighborhood, and a City of Portland survey even found the exact opposite of this conclusion (which is why the City is refusing to provide any transit planning in Southwest Portland – because of already stated opposition to Streetcar), and most of the citizens of Portland don’t live along Barbur Boulevard but to the west (following the historic Oregon Electric and Red Electric corridors) which predated the Pacific Highway (a.k.a. Barbur Boulevard).
Kruse Woods on the other hand…I fail to see the wet dream fascination (there’s one for an “outlandish” comment!) with transit here. The area is full of small office buildings that lack any major transit generator, any major destination, and is full of spread out office buildings, not dense development. The fact that the area is so sparsely served by transit as it is is a testament to the lack of demand for transit. Having done business in the area, much of the office buildings are occupied by very small businesses (think: insurance agencies, consultants, accountants, doctors’ offices) that don’t generate significant transit demand. There are no major employers – the last one, Safeco, moved out a couple years ago. (Many of the same types of office buildings exist on Barbur Blvd., and see very few if any transit riders on the 12/94 run which I ride daily; and TriMet’s 38 Boones Ferry line which serves Kruse Way is 22nd worst performing route – along with nearby 36 and 37 which are the 6th and 7th worst performing TriMet routes. The 12, on the other hand, is the 21st BEST performing route, with the 44 actually higher than the 12, at 12th, and the 54 connecting Southwest Portland with Beaverton in the 16th position. These are all taken from the FY2009 Transit Investment Plan.)
And finally – what is the demand from Southwest Portland to Kruse Way? What about Southwest Portland to Beaverton – given the number of major arterials and collectors that connect S.W. Portland to Beaverton?
carless in PDX wrote: At least it would serve some destinations that people would actually want to go visit, instead of the Boom-Boom Room. Which is about all that Barbur has to offer.
While I agree that Barbur doesn’t have much to offer…I’d at least point out Safeway and Fred Meyer are significant destinations (and busy bus stops).
Which leads to another objection to MAX on Barbur Boulevard – many proponents of a Barbur Blvd. MAX line cite the Barbur Blvd. Transit Center as a main reason. Transit shouldn’t exist to serve transit facilities and parking lots, it should exist to take people where they live, work, and play. Like Multnomah Village and Washington Square and Garden Home (a local business hub and site of a major park/recreation center). I agree, there isn’t much of Barbur, and given the proximity of I-5 there isn’t much demand for redevelopment.
Erik,
I agree that MAX is quite expensive per mile. ~30M per mile for tunnels through hilly terrain seems about right. However, SW is particulary underserved for HC transportation, and we all know that underground transportation in that area would make huge improvements in travel time possible, as opposed to ’roundabout’ routes on the surface.
Regardless, your “BRT Light” idea just doesnt compare. Sure, it may only cost ~30M… but what you suggest is reducing Barbur to two lanes! Thats not practical. Furthermore, your BRT Light would run standard buses, hardly HCT!
Now, if you want to compare full on BRT, the type of Bus Transit that could compare with LRT in capacity, then the price is nowhere near ~30M total…
The SW area, and Barbur Corridor in particular, will require *real* HCT… there is a lot of potential there. And in my opinion, the BRT Light isnt even close to HCT.
Ok, How about this (crazy idea):
Assuming that Erik and some others are correct that Barbur Blvd doesnt warrant high capacity transt, what about a route that basically serves the popoulation of SW, as Erik has suggested?
First of all, the line would have to be mostly tunnel. Expensive, but it makes sense in that particular terrain environment.
with stops at:
OHSU
Hillsdale
Burlingame
Multnomah Village
Garden Home
Washington Square
And then its possible to just run the line up Hall Blvd to Beaverton….
Ok, WHY NOT?
This line would link SW Portland neighborhoods to the Central City.
It also links SW neighborhoods to Beaverton, and also possibly serves major Beaverton neighborhoods.
Allowing zoning changes would create the possibility for clusters of density in the major and minor town centers along the route.
Why not have density at Garden Home? Or Hillsdale and Burlingame?
Then, creat a bus service that runs from Sherwood to Downtown along Barbur for the long distance commuters….
Its a short line, but with high potential ridership and development potential. It would cost probably somwhere around 400M, not too bad, and provide for existing demand.
Tell me why this isnt a good idea! haha
restriping and changes to signals isnt as cheap as one would expect. just look at the burnside-couch couplet plan for only about 30 blocks
what is cheaper than one would expect is the robertson tunnel and thanks to erik for pointing out just how cheap it was at $29.7 million/mile, good luck building surface LRT for that price. so maybe this ohsu-hillsdale tunnel isnt such an overpriced boondoggle afterall as has been claimed.
big deal theres few possible BRT lines, theyre not going to choose BRT just for the sake of it. and considering the all of the existing high capacity transit system is rail, i would expect that to largely remain the case with new lines and extensions that can at least build off the system already in place. that said there are some routes that I think clearly make sense for BRT.
one of which is TV highway, which if you look closely at the map has the route running into downtown hillsboro via streets not the rail line which goes in by the hatfield govt center. plus there isnt even capacity at beaverton TC for another rail line on the WES track. then milwaukie-clackamas (29a) is not on the SP rail line so that is not commuter rail, you can see this if you look closely on the map.
while i’d love to see max in the sw portland corridor to washington square, this route would have to be mostly in-street mixed traffic considering the street capacity particularly between barbur and washington square. and nevermind that it runs through almost entirely single family residential neighborhoods. at least barbur has space for a MAX line similar to Interstate Ave. this washington square-sw portland max line would seem to be to be much better suited as a in-street BRT (rapid bus) corridor than MAX line.
Nate wrote: Regardless, your “BRT Light” idea just doesnt compare. Sure, it may only cost ~30M… but what you suggest is reducing Barbur to two lanes! Thats not practical. Furthermore, your BRT Light would run standard buses, hardly HCT!
Wait a second…reducing Barbur to two lanes for BRT isn’t practical, but reducing Barbur to two lanes for MAX is? How is that so?
Is someone suggesting that MAX can be built within the footprint of Barbur and still retain two travel lanes in each direction? Ask the folks on Interstate Avenue or East Burnside if that was possible.
Now, if you want to compare full on BRT, the type of Bus Transit that could compare with LRT in capacity, then the price is nowhere near ~30M total…
Maybe, but BRT would still come in at a fraction of LRT.
Especially if you simply run the buses on Barbur (instead of building a massively expensive tunnel), that’s at least a $200 million savings right there over light rail with no adverse effect on ridership. If service to OHSU was so desired, why not build a second tram or peoplemover system to a Barbur Blvd. stop? (Ironically, a tram would be cheaper than a light rail tunnel?!!!)
The SW area, and Barbur Corridor in particular, will require *real* HCT… there is a lot of potential there. And in my opinion, the BRT Light isnt even close to HCT.
And why is that? Because of a pre-defined bias against buses? Not one argument was raised that actually proves that BRT light is not high-capacity transit, and a hersey argument does not count as an argument.
First of all, the line would have to be mostly tunnel. Expensive, but it makes sense in that particular terrain environment.
Again, why? Why build a subway when an existing grade already exists – and was (gulp!) used by a railroad – the Oregon Electric Railroad?
And then its possible to just run the line up Hall Blvd to Beaverton….
I would agree with this (but not on Hall) – IF, TriMet had built my recommended MAX route from Portland to Tualatin following the Oregon Electric route…a “shuttle MAX” line between Beaverton TC and Washington Square, but not on Hall (it’s too hilly), rather use the Highway 217 right-of-way with just one stop at Allen Blvd. The Shuttle MAX line could be either elevated or tunnelled under downtown Beaverton but would otherwise be at grade.
Tell me why this isnt a good idea! haha
Well, essentially it’s my idea (except for the stop at OHSU), but it eliminates service to downtown Tigard and Tualatin – both Metro designated Town Centers, and eliminates potential service to Bridgeport Village (a Metro designated Regional Center).
OHSU could be served by a tram or other means to access a surface Barbur Blvd. stop which would be just as effective and much, much cheaper than a tunnel.
I see no reason to really consider subway in Portland, save for maybe replacing surface MAX lines in downtown Portland with subways underneath downtown Portland. Subways are horrendously expensive and disruptive during construction, create security concerns, and work best in very dense areas where surface land is at a premium. Subways do not work very well in suburban areas as the subway stations are an obstacle to transit access and are hidden from view.
jon wrote: theyre not going to choose BRT just for the sake of it. and considering the all of the existing high capacity transit system is rail
So this is the “Lemming argument”, if everything else is MAX then the new line should be MAX too, without considering whether MAX is really cost-effective?
plus there isnt even capacity at beaverton TC for another rail line on the WES track
That was faulty engineering on TriMet’s part for building that kind of station.
this route would have to be mostly in-street mixed traffic considering the street capacity particularly between barbur and washington square.
Not if the route used the historic Oregon Electric right-of-way. Yes, it would have impacts on Multnomah Boulevard. From Garden Home to Washington Square there would be quite a bit of property acquisition. But it would be grade separated, not street running, high-speed.
at least barbur has space for a MAX line similar to Interstate Ave
So? It still doesn’t connect as many Regional and Town Centers as the OE route. What’s the point of building a rail line to the middle-of-nowhere when a more suitable alignment that serves population and employment centers? Just because Barbur is wider?
I agree that Barbur deserves BRT, and if Metro/TriMet would get their heads out of their asses we would have had good quality BRT like bus service on Barbur a full ten years ago. A BRT-Lite style line such as LA’s Metro Rapid service would ensure that local bus service is retained but provide rapid/express service which would essentially turn the 94 into an all-day service, and improve transit for everyone. And LA has a greater transit usage percentage than Portland does, and has had much greater ridership increases than Portland has seen. They must be doing something right…
Wait a second…reducing Barbur to two lanes for BRT isn’t practical, but reducing Barbur to two lanes for MAX is? How is that so?
Who ever said MAX would reduce Barbur to two lanes?
It was you who proposed an on-the-cheap re-striping of Barbur for BRT. I don’t know of a MAX proposal that takes lanes from Barbur (that’s one reason why MAX proposals are expensive…)
Nate was responding specifically to your proposal… if your proposal in fact actually adds lanes to Barbur rather than re-striping existing lanes for BRT, how do you come up with the low expense figure?
Bob R. wrote: It was you who proposed an on-the-cheap re-striping of Barbur for BRT. I don’t know of a MAX proposal that takes lanes from Barbur (that’s one reason why MAX proposals are expensive…)
So, what you’re saying, Bob, is that if MAX is built on Barbur, that MAX will ***NOT REMOVE ANY AUTOMOBILE CAPACITY IN ANY WAY, WHATSOEVER***, as an official promise from Metro, TriMet, the City of Portland and ODOT?
I don’t believe it:
If, as Jon wrote, at least barbur has space for a MAX line similar to Interstate Ave – is Interstate Avenue still five lanes wide plus parking strips for auto traffic? No – MAX took out three of those lanes. Is Burnside still five lanes wide plus parking strips for auto traffic? No – MAX took out three of those lanes. The only time MAX didn’t reduce auto capacity is when MAX was built on its own right-of-way.
Unless you have official documentation from Metro/TriMet/COP/ODOT that disputes it, I won’t believe it.
And, I never, ever, claimed that my figures “adds lanes” to Barbur. Note that I stated “restriping”. I was exact in what I said.
Hey Erik,
I think the point is that, with your BRT light proposal, we would sacrifice lanes on Barbur, and in addition, we wouldnt get HCT, because BRT light is not HCT. Yes, it would be an improvement on the regular bus routes, for ~30M, and NO, IT WOULD NOT BE HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT.
If the proposal is for full BRT, then of course, we are looking at a very expensive HCT project. And it may be, as you claim, that full BRT will be less expensive than LRT. That is not certain, however. There is even evidence to suggest that in hilly SW Portland, a judicious combination of tunnels and surface tracks would be less expensive than a fully surface LRT line.
I think you make some great points, specifically that just running HCT down Barbur Blvd isnt necessarily going to give us the best transit line possible for the money.
I think the main attraction to Barbur Blvd is that its a ready made corridor, and with or without tunnels, there is quite a bit of space to work with when you consider Barbur, I5 ROI, and the space in between. Regardeless, that doesnt mean its the only route that should be considered for SW Portland.
Maybe the answer is a combination of lines, for instance, commuter rail from sherwood connecting to WES, a LRT line running through SW in a combination of tunnels and surface alignments, and a BRT service on 99W from Tigard to Central City…. there are lots of options, and you’re right to examine this issue from such a broad and open perspective!
Generally, BRT will be more expensive to operate and maintain than LRT over the long run.
Start with operator salaries. Eugene’s EmX buses have 44 seats, compared to 72 seats on the low-floor MAX cars. It would take 3 buses to roughly match the capacity of a two-car train set. (Build the system properly and you can run 4 car trains: 288 seats per operator). Figure operator salaries alone will be triple the cost.
Plus, you can get, I believe, 12 to 15 years operating life out of a bus, against maybe 50 years for a light rail train. That’s a lot of replacement buses over 50 years.
BRT makes sense if you don’t have the prospective ridership to fill 144-seat train sets and you can’t scrape together the resources to meet the higher capital costs of LRT. In Portland, it probably would make sense for some corridors. When it comes time to take a good look at HCT on Barbur, we should get some good numbers on prospective ridership.
Personally, I’d rather spend more up front to get lower O&M costs over the lifetime of the system.
That was faulty engineering on TriMet’s part for building that kind of station.
i’d say the beaverton station was more an issue of value engineering (along with several other instances of it elsewhere on WES).
Not if the route used the historic Oregon Electric right-of-way. Yes, it would have impacts on Multnomah Boulevard. From Garden Home to Washington Square there would be quite a bit of property acquisition. But it would be grade separated, not street running, high-speed.
lots of property asquisition? good luck with that. dont get me wrong i’d love to see the OE line reactivated but i really dont see how this can realistically be done considering the state of this right of way today. the overpass at 45th that existed in OE days has been replaced
with an at-grade crossing. ever since multnomah blvd was built on the old OE RoW all kinds of cul-de-sacs and driveways have been built feeding into the blvd. have you seen the RoW in garden home by Washington Square? the RoW hardly exists anymore its all redeveloped.
So? It still doesn’t connect as many Regional and Town Centers as the OE route. What’s the point of building a rail line to the middle-of-nowhere when a more suitable alignment that serves population and employment centers? Just because Barbur is wider?
i know it doesnt connect as many town centers, but you cant just squeeze a light rail line in someplace when theres no space for it, your options for placing new rail lines or busways are limited to wide arterials, freeway medians, abandoned rail lines or next to active rail lines. belmont and the whole eastside west of 39th has the density to support light rail, but theres no space for it unless you go underground or close all the traffic lanes or level entire blocks of houses. hence the whole reason i support the tunnel to serve hillsdale and ohsu, as it allows the LRT route to follow the town/regional & employments centers regardless of existing surface right of ways and capacity.
and LA has built the most ambitous transit system in the US since the DC metro. a new HCT line opens about every 3-4 years for the last 20 years. theyve certainly spent a good deal of money on it too. what LA has done is remarkable.
Nate wrote: we wouldnt get HCT, because BRT light is not HCT. Yes, it would be an improvement on the regular bus routes, for ~30M, and NO, IT WOULD NOT BE HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT.
Well, let’s start with defining “high capacity transit”…because let’s face it, in many parts of the world (i.e. Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Japan, China, India, virtually all of Europe) – MAX would not fit the definition of “high capacity transit”.
Metro includes BRT as “high capacity transit”. I would argue that “Streetcar” is NOT “high capacity transit” since it has the same capacity as an ordinary articulated bus.
I think the main attraction to Barbur Blvd is that its a ready made corridor
For BRT? Or for LRT? My argument is that it’s a corridor. What is going to serve the people along the corridor the best? A station every 1.5 miles apart? Or a combination of BRT and local bus service – like Los Angeles – that serves EVERYONE?
Maybe the answer is a combination of lines
Which is extremely do-able with BRT,
commuter rail from sherwood connecting to WES, a LRT line running through SW in a combination of tunnels and surface alignments, and a BRT service on 99W from Tigard to Central City
Ta Da!!!!!!!!!!!
I’ll explain: Westside MAX was a great project. It installed a light rail system that didn’t duplicate or eliminate bus service (it did remove some bus lines from downtown Portland, but they were marginal routes that ran mostly weekday rush hours only). The 57 got bumped up to Frequent Service (part out of necessity, since the artics were pulled from the route at the same time). Bus service was improved at the same time as MAX, so virtually everyone won.
MAX on Barbur wouldn’t do that – it would provide negative impact to a significant number of bus riders with no help; not to mention the excessive cost and disruption to build. MAX on the Oregon Electric alignment would duplicate the success on the Westside – it would install a new light rail line that roughly serves the same area, and would allow for the enhancement of local bus service.
Barbur Boulevard would still retain its bus as is, as would most of the local routes. But in addition to improved bus service would be the high capacity LRT route which connects the town/regional centers.
jon wrote: ever since multnomah blvd was built on the old OE RoW all kinds of cul-de-sacs and driveways have been built feeding into the blvd.
Such as? I’m looking at Google Earth and I don’t see any cul-de-sacs coming off of Multnomah Boulevard.
Also, looking again at Google Earth, a surprising amount of the ROW still exists. In fact I literally shocked myself driving on S.W. Oak Street near Lincoln Center (short cut to Washington Square) to find a long stretch of fenced off, but undeveloped land. Suspecting it was the old OE I checked Google Earth – and sure enough, it was the old right-of-way.
The overpass at 45th Avenue could always be reinstalled.
Would it be expensive? Yes. But it would meet far, far more of our region’s planning goals than routing LRT down Barbur Blvd. (to serve a parking lot).
Douglas K. wrote: Personally, I’d rather spend more up front to get lower O&M costs over the lifetime of the system.
Unfortunately we don’t have the money. So are we going to improve our transit system now, or are we going to scrap our system as we go along – sacrifice parts of the transit system so that we can afford other parts, because that’s what we are doing right now.
What happens five years from now, if the economy gets better – will our overall transit system still be successful and our bus system still increase ridership? Or is the point really to make the bus system so miserable that nobody wants to ride it – and that the only way to build ridership is more expensive LRT lines?
TriMet already knows that successful bus lines are cheaper to operate than light rail…the 72 has a much better operating ratio than any MAX line, and several other bus lines are comparable to MAX. In fact as fuel prices come down and TriMet eliminates the bottom-hanging fruit, the bus system average should actually come down. And if TriMet did some honest accounting and didn’t make bus riders subsidize MAX (i.e. paying for “system” costs of MAX park-and-ride lots or for TriMet financing costs that are solely MAX related), the bus operating cost would be even lower.
the 72 has a much better operating ratio than any MAX line
I’m not sure about operating ratios, but the document I have says that, in Spring 2008, the MAX Blue Line cost per ride was $1.23, both the Red Line and Line 72 were $1.55, and the Yellow Line was $1.90
Ok,
First of all, MAX is most certainly HCT. Yeah, it doesnt have the same capacity as the Jubilee line in London. Fine. It still moves a whole lot of people quite efficiently. Portland doesnt need 10 carriages arriving every 3 minutes. But the current MAX system will be exrpandable in the future, running three and four train sets. Thats a lot of people. With a subway through downtown, MAX will be just as convenient as any other metro.
And yes, full BRT is HCT. No question. BRT is a good option for some corridors.
This BRT lite thing, or whatever you want to call it, is NOT HCT. No comparison. Yes, its an improvement on regular bus service, but hardly HCT.
I would love to see LRT along the old OE route… this would require both tunnels and surface alignment. Its a fact that much of the old ROW has been infringed.
I would also love to see an expansion of the WES system to Sherwood, Newburg, possibly McMinnville… also to Salem.
And I think, with LRT in the core SW neighborhoods, dedicated lane and electrified BRT on Barbur could work very well… with a main trunk line and three or four spurs.
Anyewys, buses are only inexpensive per trip on super busy routes. Its the marginal routes that cost so much money. And LRT can serve the super busy routes at an even lower cost.
is there a list of the 10 busiest routes somewhere? and ridership #s per route?
all i know is the 72, 14 and blue line are among the busiest.
are you serious about multnomah blvd? there are many parking lot entrances, streets and driveways feeding into it. and its only two lanes now so you couldnt fit both rail and road in the existing ROW. i’m looking at google earth right now. garden home to 217, save for a few small stretches is entirely redeveloped.
and as far as removing or changing access as would be the case on multnomah blvd…
look at that frivolous lawsuit trimet just went through where the Hotel Modera developer bought a crappy 50s motel to rehab and then complained that his new auto entrance wasnt grand enough and therefore a taking because the old one entered onto the transit mall avenues. (if youre looking for a hotel with a ‘grand entry’ the last thing you’d buy would be a 50s motel.)
“is there a list of the 10 busiest routes somewhere? and ridership #s per route?”
Sort of. The Transit Investment Plan (TIP) (7MB PDF) Go to page 110 and it tells you boarding ride per vehicle hour. Of course, you don’t know exactly what the vehicle hours are, for instance, the 8 Jackson Park has 11 departures from downtown to OHSU between 7-8am, where as the 4 Fressenden has 6 in that same time frame to downtown. They both have very similar BR/VH, which is more a testament to the fact that the buses are only so big, and so they have to use more of them to handle the 8’s rush hour load than the 4’s. (On the other hand the last 4 pulls out of downtown at 1:30am even on Sunday, (and it has a reasonable number of people on it too, I was on the second to last one tonight,) where as the last 8 is 12:30 on weeknights.)
Knowing that, it is fairly easy to figure out what the top ten lines are, they are the lines with the most departures. You don’t need to look at the TIP, look at the schedules: The routes that run most often are the ones that are the most crowded.
(There is probably an actual list somewhere that answers your question directly, but as far as I know it isn’t “public,” you’d have to ask TriMet for it…)
From TriMet Fall 2008 Ridership Report
Top Ten bus routes: Total daily rides cost/ride
1. 72 Killingsworth, 19,620 $1.68
2. 75 39th/Lombard 11,520 $2.32
3. 20 Burnside 10,950 $2.29
4. 4 Division 9,280 $2.01
5. 9 Powell 9,070 $1.89
6. 71 60th/122nd 8,520 $2.54
7. 4 Fessenden 8,400 $2.03
8. 6 MLK Blvd 7,600 $1.97
9. 57 TV Hwy/FGrove 7,500 $2.27
10. 14 Hawthorne 7,480 $2.01
MAX Blue Line 70,010 $1.28
MAX Red Line 24,960 $1.58
MAX Yellow Line 14,070 $1.91
By combining the two #4 lines you get almost 18K riders second only to the 72.
Two 12 lines get almost 13K combined.
8 Jackson Park is a very short route serving 3,560 riders at $1.66 per ride. Only it, 9 Powell and of course 72 Killingsworth have lower cost/ride than the MAX Yellow Line, which has the highest MAX cost/ride.
Cross town routes are longer, hence their higher numbers. Note that the MAX Yellow Line is approaching triple the ridership of the old 5 Interstate bus which had about 5K per day.
[Moderator: Formatting cleaned up a tad.]
Lenny Anderson Says: Cross town routes are longer, hence their higher numbers. Note that the MAX Yellow Line is approaching triple the ridership of the old 5 Interstate bus which had about 5K per day.
In the case of Line 72, the high ridership also reflects the local nature of the trips. You can pack a lot of people on a bus when they only ride a short distance and are replaced by new riders.
Are these ridership reports things that people have to ask TriMet for? They don’t seem to be listed on the agency’s site.
Ridership data must be public information,
especially with service cuts on the table. There is a lot more there than I reported. Call 238-RIDE.
re SW HCT…it appears that the key question is what are the comparative costs of re-building Barbur to keep 4 traffic lanes and HCT to Burlingame vs. running HCT thru a tunnel with stops at OHSU and Hillsdale to somewhere around Burlingame/Bertha Blvd. It could be a wash.
Then is it out Barbur or Multnomah Blvd? The latter has appeal, but what do you do once you get to Olson Rd? and how do you get to Wash Sq? to Tigard? Converting old state highways like Interstate and Barbur has its virtues…a more attractive, rebuilt arterial for all modes with twice or triple the transit ridership. In the meantime why not some kind of “BRT light” to build ridership and establish station areas.
While the OHSU/MV tunnel idea seems outlandish at first blush, upon more detailed inspection, it’s not so unrealistic. By my measurement, the needed tunnel, from the base of Marquam Hill to somewhere near the intersection of Barbur/Multnomah is around 2.7 miles. By comparison, the Robertson Tunnel, which has been a great investment by any measure, is about 3 miles long.
Retrofitting an arterial to fit light rail in the center costs a pile of money too, so the tunnel may accomplish some worthy goals at a competitive price. That’s why we study these things. Let’s not get so riled up by a study, sheesh.
As for the strip mall character of Barbur, look at it as land banking – low-cost land uses that will readily fall to redevelopment as the economy permits. With HCT and associated sidewalk improvements, Barbur might even one day become walkable.
re: ridership numbers, thanks lenny exactly what i was looking for. and of course the streetcar is around 13,500-14,000/day, well up there with the busiest bus lines in the region. also its interesting just how busy the hillsboro-gresham line is and that 70K number is only for the blue line, probably 3/4 of the red line riders ride entirely within the gateway-beaverton segment.
was there not bus lanes on barbur 30 years ago? what happened to these? how did they work? heard something about them between burlingame and lair hill and also something about people standing in them and getting hit.
In the meantime why not some kind of “BRT light” to build ridership and establish station areas.
I like the idea of this. Maybe we add a few queue-jump lanes at targeted intersections, additional signal prioritization, some pull-outs, etc to make buses more efficient in the corridor for now. It would help the existing routes, and if Portland started using temporary buses to help establish ridership along I-205 to the new green line stops it could help ridership somewhat.
It seems like adding some nice buses (maybe with an alternate paint job to indicate they’re a precursor to MAX) would work for the Milwaukee line to help build up ridership for opening as well, and as each MAX line opens we could shift those buses to the next route that’s getting MAX. Yes, there are existing routes along the Milwaukee , but have these duplicate the approximate MAX station stops (and adding service to the corridor).
Once we get to the stage of building MAX along the corridor, either in a tunnel or in the ROW, we’ll still have these improvements for the buses that will still run along Barbur. Regardless of building MAX along this corridor, I doubt that we’ll eliminate all parallel bus service.
Unlike Interstate being parallel to a number of arterials in N Portland, there are few other feasible options to run buses between downtown and SW.
It also doesn’t seem like it would make sense to force all riders of the 12 to transfer to get to downtown either, if the MAX is chosen to go up Multnomah. I can’t imagine they’d remove all buses from Barbur and make the bus improvements still worthwhile.
Dave wrote: It also doesn’t seem like it would make sense to force all riders of the 12 to transfer to get to downtown either, if the MAX is chosen to go up Multnomah.
While I would never suggest such an option, there is certainly precedent for it:
When Westside MAX was opened, the 57 was truncated at Beaverton TC. Yes, the 58 took over, but it was no longer a single route.
Routes like the 60 and 88 no longer ran to downtown. The 58 and the 94X were discontinued. I’m sure there were a few others I can’t quite think of…but the days of seeing a lot of buses running up and down Sylvan are long gone, replaced by the 58, and the occassional 63.
But – the 57 remained, and was turned into Frequent Service west of Beaverton, where it complemented MAX. Just as a 12 bus (and the 76) would complement a SW MAX line to Tualatin. Yes, some people would need (or want) to transfer.
Other buses, like the 1, 38, 39, 43, 44 and 45 – would no longer need to run into downtown. The 94X presumably would be discontinued; or its role would be quite different – becoming primarily an express for the benefit of Sherwood and King City, and not for the Barbur Blvd. TC.
But…a MAX line is what, 10, 15 years out? What do we do until then? What is preventing Metro/City of Portland/TriMet from making improvements TODAY? TriMet isn’t paying me on its payroll to shut up and wait for a train for 15 years.
As for the strip mall character of Barbur
Strange thing is…there’s only three strip malls on Barbur. Barbur & Terwilliger (where the parking lot is actually on the “back side” of the mall, and the stores actually run through and there’s a VERY POORLY equipped bus stop which should be taking advantage of these street-facing storefronts), Barbur Place (where the AT&T Wireless store is) and that yellow building almost across from Barbur Place (next to the Chevron gas station, with the Taco del Mar and the Play ‘N Trade stores).
There are two “big box” stores – Safeway, and a very old and small (by current standards) Fred Meyer store.
Could Barbur be redeveloped? Sure. Is it pedestrian friendly? Probably not. But…is MAX going to magically make it happen? No. Could PDOT/ODOT make modest improvements TODAY, along with improved bus service? Absolutely.
East Burnside might be “pedestrian friendly” because there are sidewalks, but there’s nothing out there that I’d want to go to. Distances are far and few between residential and commercial areas; crosswalks across Burnside (and the MAX line) are far and few between. And Interstate Avenue isn’t exactly a model that replicates upon the successes of the Sellwood District, or Multnomah Village, or the Belmont or Hawthorne strips.
jon wrote: are you serious about multnomah blvd? there are many parking lot entrances, streets and driveways feeding into it.
And the vast, vast majority of them can be fed off of other streets.
The few that couldn’t be…access streets could be built for them. There is plenty of room in the right-of-way for a two-track LRT mainline, plus a small access street.
Multnomah Boulevard is Washington County’s equivalent to the Sellwood Bridge, a thoroughfare primarily used by extra-Multnomah County residents to access the inner city. The locals use Garden Home, or Vermont, or Capitol. Without Multnomah, there’s still Beaverton-Hillsdale, another well-below-capacity (former state) highway.
But…a MAX line is what, 10, 15 years out? What do we do until then? What is preventing Metro/City of Portland/TriMet from making improvements TODAY? TriMet isn’t paying me on its payroll to shut up and wait for a train for 15 years.
This is exactly why I think we should start pre-developing routes before MAX gets onto them. Increase service through BRT-lite, then when the LRT is completed, move the BRT-lite to the next corridor.
Why couldn’t we have put an I-205/Green Line bus route into effect connecting Gateway to the 8 stations along the Green Line using I-205 to connect them, until the MAX is done? When that’s done, move the buses to the Milwaukie line, when that’s done, move them to Barbur, and so on as we expand MAX.
As I’ve said, I hope we keep parallel bus routes in operation, provided they connect farther out than the end of the line. It’s a good idea to keep a 12 with a MAX line, just for local access/MAX problems.
Maybe until it becomes a MAX line we call it (in the case of Barbur) SWEET, as in Southwest Express Entry Transit, SEXIE, as in Southeast EXpress Intercity Exchange, or HOT, as in High Occupancy Transit.
Anything to the MAX is better than something that’s just SWEET, SEXIE or HOT.
So then, if there is a SW MAX line on Multnomah Blvd, then where does it go from there?
If the line continues down Barbur, then of course the line provides service to 99W/Capital hwy & Tigard.
If the line runs down Multnomah, then what? Once you get to Garden Home, there arent really any options but to go underground. Im not sure, but I remember hearing that Olsen Rd was widened to encompass the remaining ROW… is that correct? If so, the line would definitley have to travel in a tunnel in order to get to Washington Square.
After Washington Square, Beaverton? South to Tigard?
The temporary bus thing sounds interesting… but in my opinion, it sounds more like a good idea that could be modified and opened permanently as a new bus program. For example, Bus lines that exist with limited exclusive ROW and signal prevention, expanded stops, etc, designed especially to accomadate MAX, whereby users outside of walking distance can easily use these shuttles in conjunction with the MAX… especially interesting in SW Portland…
nate wrote: So then, if there is a SW MAX line on Multnomah Blvd, then where does it go from there?
Well if anyone bothered to look at my map, you’d see that from Garden Home the route would take you to Washington Square (a Metro designated Regional Center), downtown Tigard (a Metro designated Town Center), near the Bridgeport Village area (a Metro designated Regional Center) and ending in downtown Tualatin (a Metro designated Town Center). (My map doesn’t directly serve Bridgeport, but it would not be difficult to serve it.)
If the line continues down Barbur, then of course the line provides service to 99W/Capital hwy & Tigard.
And bypasses Washington Square, travels through a very heavily travelled portion of Highway 99W (south of I-5) that is already well over capacity and that MAX would not help reduce congestion for…and ends in Tigard. All for the benefit of serving a parking lot (Barbur Blvd. Transit Center). Wow.
If the line runs down Multnomah, then what? Once you get to Garden Home, there arent really any options but to go underground. Im not sure, but I remember hearing that Olsen Rd was widened to encompass the remaining ROW… is that correct?
No that is not correct. Look at Google Earth. Look at my map. The Oregon Electric right-of-way for the most part is well south of Oleson. No, it would not need a tunnel. Most of the property boundaries line up with the ROW which is still clearly visible in aerial photographs to this day. Yes, some homes would be demolished but it is possible, doable, and logical.
After Washington Square, Beaverton? South to Tigard?
As explained for the 26,305th time, Tigard and Tualatin.
I did take a look at Erik’s map (although you probably should link to it again when you refer to it this far down the thread, Erik) and it may be worth looking at as a light rail route, at least as far as Tigard TC. Whether it could continue down the WES/freight rail corridor probably would depend on whether there’s enough room for an extra track in the right-of-way. Given that Erik proposes only two stations, I can see a single track with bypass sidings supporting MAX service south of Tigard if there isn’t room for more.
As I mentioned earlier, I would add a station at Gibbs to the proposal, with some kind of people-mover like a funicular railway connecting to OHSU and the top of the Aerial Tram. This would provide frequent, reliable access to OHSU, thus addressing one of the major points in favor of a tunnel.
All for the benefit of serving a parking lot (Barbur Blvd. Transit Center). Wow.
ALSO for the benefit of serving PCC Sylvania, a significant trip generator. A MAX station at SW 53rd and Barbur would be within seven or eight blocks of the campus. That stop easily could be served by a frequent campus shuttle.
Erik,
Ive looked at your map on google.
It seems like a pretty good plan. It does, however, look as if a significant number of residences would need to be demolished in order to implement.
Additionally, I wonder if extending the line all the way to Tualitin is worth the expense, given the potential ridership. Isnt Tualitin primarily an exurban style community with big mcmansions and such? Would those type of Americans really ride any type of transit? A question worth exploring, i think.
Regardeless, I would like to see a plan like this studied for LRT. Im a strong believer in commuter rail lines serving hinterland suburbia and exurban centers. I think LRT better serves as a city metro.
The Bay Area, with both BART for the region and Muni for the City, is a good starting point for the regional model.
And looking to Paris, with both the RER and Metro systems… as well as London, with regional rail (now christened “the London Overground”) and the Tube… these systems are effective because the recognize the differences between regional trips and city trips, and the different journeys that different residents require.
So, with that in mind, I agree with you Erik that an Old Electric-ish LRT route through SW PDX is a worthy project… but I would also like to see expanded commuter rail in the region. As well, you’re favorite- expanded bus service. Tailoring bus service to the whole transit system is necessary and economical.
I believe the Multnomah Blvd route was studied as part of the original Westside LRT study. Might be interesting to review that. Given SW neighborhoods phobia for density, it might be a tough sell, as LRT station areas will get higher density zoning.