$75M in Federal Funding Announced for Streetcar Loop


Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced today that the Portland Streetcar Loop project will receive $75M in Small Starts funding.

LaHood said “Portland is the model for providing integrated transit options” creating community livability.

Congressman Earl Blumenaur thanked LaHood, saying “you have broken the log jam” on funding for this project.

The funding is composed of $45M appropriated by Congress earlier this year and $30M of stimulus funds provided under the discretion of the Federal Transit Administration.


116 responses to “$75M in Federal Funding Announced for Streetcar Loop”

  1. That’s just a bill for later…Although I would be lying if I said I am not somewhat happy to where the money’s going.

    The streetcar should be “rapid” in certain sections, with a dedicated lane. This is the only way to go.

  2. Not to be nitpicky, but the earlier appropriation was because Small Starts wasn’t funding the project, right? And stimulus funding doesn’t fall under Small Starts either, does it? I honestly don’t know.

  3. B: I particularly liked BHO’s admission that mass transit spreads disease when he said that if you are sick, you should avoid using mass transit.

    Why are we building a disease spreading system anyway?

  4. ws: The streetcar isn’t intended as “mass transit,” it’s intended as a development tool. Take a look at the stop spacing in the Lloyd district, there are some sections where stops are two blocks apart. When this was brought up in an earlier comment thread, Chris Smith more or less said that the speed of the streetcar is not the top priority.

  5. The slower pace of Streetcar allowed me a longer visit with former Mayor Katz this AM as we headed to NW. What is the rush?
    Now a stop every two blocks downtown for MAX is another story…save five minutes by shutting down Kings Hill, Pioneer Place and Convention Center stops.

  6. Why are we building a disease spreading system anyway?

    You’re absolutely right. We should just get rid of these pesky disease-spreading airplanes right now. No good can come of it.

    And shopping malls — they cram people into narrow indoor passageways instead of getting fresh air out in the street. Vile germ factories.

    And schools. Definitely schools. Would you let your children go near other children in these panic-stricken times? Such poor parenting — letting kids go to school. Shameful.

  7. Take a look at the stop spacing in the Lloyd district, there are some sections where stops are two blocks apart.

    In recent months a few stops have been eliminated from the eastside loop map, including two in the Lloyd District. (I know, because I had to redo the simulation videos.)

    The February ’09 map can be seen here:
    http://www.portlandstreetcar.org/pdf/loop_fact_sheet_and_map_feb09.pdf

    I don’t think there’s anywhere on the east side where the claim that stops are literally two blocks apart is true, although there are a couple of segments where the distinction between “nearly 3 blocks” and “over two blocks” is difficult to discern.

    But take a look at the west side and east side of the map — it is clear that the stop density for the loop is far less than it is downtown.

  8. Bob,

    I stand corrected. I was under the impression that the map that was out in September 2008 was pretty much the final word on where stops would be located; I can see that some real progress was made and that my concerns about stop density have been addressed.

    Thanks for setting me straight.

  9. No question Interstate is a worse thru route for cars…but that makes it better for everyone else.
    The transformation of Interstate from an ugly ex-state highway to a city boulevard has been remarkable. The great failure is was PDOT’s leaving so much asphalt below the curbs where you cannot park, drive, walk, or do anything else. It could have been a much greener street…check out the parking strip in front of the Polish Church or north of Lombard as an example what could have been.
    Meanwhile, congrats to Chris and Portland Streetcar! Let construction begin!

  10. Don’t thank me, Doug, thank the people in the Loop committee who took these issues into consideration — I’m certainly breathing a sigh of relief about stop spacing.

    (While you need a certain minimum density of stops to make a circulator serve a worthwhile selection of destinations, it is far, far easier to add new stops later than it is to remove or consolidate poor-performing stops after a system opens. A stop which doesn’t exist has a limited constituency. :-) )

  11. Not to be nitpicky, but the earlier appropriation was because Small Starts wasn’t funding the project, right? And stimulus funding doesn’t fall under Small Starts either, does it? I honestly don’t know.

    Four years ago Congress set up the Small Starts program, intending it for Streetcars and funded it with $200M.

    The Bush FTA promptly wrote administrative rules that made it impossible for ANY Streetcar project to qualify and made grants with some of the funds for Bus Rapid Transit projects.

    The $45M appropriated about 45 days ago was an attempt to ‘earmark around’ the Bush-era rules that were still place. With today’s announcement, Secretary LaHood has essentially swept-away the Bush-era rules to free up this money and has also allocated $30M from stimulus funds (that could go to either New Starts or Small Starts).

  12. “The slower pace of Streetcar allowed me a longer visit with former Mayor Katz this AM as we headed to NW. What is the rush?

    Now a stop every two blocks downtown for MAX is another story…save five minutes by shutting down Kings Hill, Pioneer Place and Convention Center stops.”

    Humans are a species of convenience. We will never attract people to transit if it is slow. It’s just the way it works. People don’t choose to drive in the suburbs; it’s that it’s the only option and the most convenient.

    Transit should be trying to better compete with other transportation methods. I’d prefer a rapid streetcar than a slow streetcar. I’d also prefer a rapid bus system than a slow streetcar.

    Streetcars shouldn’t be used to entice development. It’s unfortunate that to build urban we need an incentive like a streetcar system. I’d say the biggest attractant/amenity to the Pearl District is not the streetcar loop, but rather Jamison Square and Tanner Spring parks. Just my opinion, but quality public spaces are more important than the streetcar.

    Good point on closing some stops for MAX. There should be a dynamic stop system. There’s no need for a convention center stop when there’s no conventions at the time – or at least a stop that goes there for every train stop.

  13. The February ’09 map can be seen here:

    Thanks for sharing the link, the Eastside plans look much better than what I’ve seen before.

    I live a short walk from the 23rd end of what’s existing, and it’ll be nice to be able to get to the Eastside/Rose Quarter without waiting for a 77 (that never seems to show up when I need it) or taking the 15 down to the MAX.

    Hopefully we can finish this one ahead of schedule like the Yellow Line. It’ll be a great catalyst for Eastside/Lloyd Center development once the credit markets open.

  14. There’s no need for a convention center stop when there’s no conventions at the time – or at least a stop that goes there for every train stop.

    Isn’t that the transfer to the 6 also? It seems the transfer point keeps it quite busy, at least the off-peak times I go by.

  15. Isn’t that the transfer to the 6 also? It seems the transfer point keeps it quite busy, at least the off-peak times I go by.

    Yes, that’s one issue that would need to be resolved if changes were made to the Convention Center stop — but I think it can be done.

    Here’s my thoughts on this…

    The Rose Quarter station is actually about the same walking distance as the Convention Center station, from the north Convention Center entrance and ticket office. But it’s not a pleasant walk and involves crossing more lanes of traffic at a busy off-ramp.

    However, if you removed the Convention Center station and built a nice covered walkway to the Rose Quarter station along Holladay, and ensured that the traffic signals gave prompt and adequate priority to pedestrians, that would take care of Convention Center riders just fine.

    Rename the Rose Quarter station to “Rose Quarter / Convention Center” and nobody has to reprint any guidebooks and the Convention Center still gets to have the prestige of a station name.

    That leaves the issue of transfers on MLK/Grand… but you _could_ move the 7th Ave. platform closer to 6th or Grand. Because side streets are closed off in that area, you can still get away with calling it 7th. The relocated station would serve transfers on MLK/Grand reasonably well, and the offices currently served by 7th would be just as well served, except reaching the BPA building would be an additional block walk (but this building is also served well by the Lloyd Center platform).

  16. I’ve often wondered if that off-ramp from I-84 to the Rose Quarter is really necessary. Couldn’t motorists just get off at either Lloyd Center or Broadway?

    Closing (and eventually removing) the off-ramp would allow a very safe, low-traffic crossing from the Rose Quarter station to the Convention Center. And I agree with the concept of a sheltered walkway.

  17. I’ve often wondered if that off-ramp from I-84 to the Rose Quarter is really necessary. Couldn’t motorists just get off at either Lloyd Center or Broadway?

    Well, it is a very handy way to access the Steel Bridge by car to reach Old Town, but yes there are alternate routes.

  18. What a country!
    What a world!

    Even though this is the most ridiculous project since the tram, lets look at the bright side:

    It’s $75 million that won’t be spent on killing innocent people!

  19. I love seeing the Streetcar expansion…

    Bob:

    regarding the stop-spacing on MAX, is this something they will be addresing in the High Capacity Transit Central City update?

  20. Chris:

    Do you know how far this federal funding would get the eastside project? Would it just facilitate the first loop around the Lloyd District, or further along to the Morrison bridge?

  21. The $75M in Federal Funds, combined with the $72M already committed in local match, will take us all the way to OMSI by 2011, poised to “close the loop” when the Milwaukie LRT bridges opens (2015, we hope).

  22. Great. Perhaps with another $75 million we could get the streetcar to Milwaukie—-and not spend the $1 billion plus Tri Met is budgeting.

    Also, Why couldn’t SamTrak RR run a passenger service from Milwaukie up to OMSI? They already have the rail in place. There’s plenty of parking around such as at Eastgate, Pendleton Mills, Sellwood Park.

  23. regarding the stop-spacing on MAX, is this something they will be addresing in the High Capacity Transit Central City update?

    I don’t know… I haven’t heard anything about any discussions on existing MAX stop-spacing at an agency/planning level.

  24. The pace of MAX thru downtown is on Metro’s HCT radar. Not sure about solutions short of a subway, but there are some out there. Note that the new Mall MAX stations are 4-5 blocks apart. Bob’s semi-subway in the Morrison/Yamhill corridor would enable station consolidation or make that politically easier.

  25. Bob’s semi-subway in the Morrison/Yamhill corridor …

    It’s a great idea but I can’t claim credit for it. It originally came from one of our other commenters. His handle is completely escaping me at the moment, but that’s because I don’t know squat about anyone’s involvement with anything.

  26. Never heard of small starts before. $75m with $72m local match sounds like about 50% federal match. Our community will never invest in transit if they get 50/50 split on transit and 80/20 split on highways. Currently the local officials are getting 100/0 split on our CRC-equivalent megaproject, hitting up the state and toll roads (even on existing bridges) for all the “local” match. That will hopefully fail.

  27. I look forward to photographing the Streetcar on the Broadway Bridge in a couple of years!

    Since I live near the new east side loop, I’ll be able to walk to a stop – cool!

    I think MAX’s whole architecture is flawed. I know it was designed as a hybrid streetcar/commuter train, to run openly on Portland streets and not be buried underground…but I think it should not be a streetcar downtown. A few years ago, planners probably should have converted the MAX between Goose Hollow and Lloyd Center into a separate Streetcar line and have MAX bypass it, given MAX only a few stops in between, allowing it to go a lot faster through downtown (and potentially have more capacity with more than two cars). Ah, but I know – too late now…

  28. Not too late–a tunnel between Goose Hollow and Lloyd would be nice.

    Mucho bucks, though…

  29. It originally came from one of our other commenters.

    That was me. I think I was still posting as “djk” at the time. Of course, you improved on my “two station tunnel” concept with a single station between Pioneer Square and 10th, serving both N/S MAX and the Streetcar with one station.

    It’s a great idea

    Thanks.

  30. I’ve always tried to look decades into the future and predict how streetcar and light rail expansion might logically occur. I still think the UPRR should be relocated to a tunnel under Grand, and MAX tracks installed on Water and/or SE 1st Ave. Under these assumptions of eastside growth, the streetcar line on Grand would have to be torn up and replaced. On the other hand, the streetcar line will help direct development to the area which could spur these ideas.

    Jim Howell has looked at redesignating I-405 as I-5 and either decommissioning the Marquam Bridge or dedicating it to I-84 traffic alone. This would shrink the eastbank freeway further from the bank. I figure the UPRR main line is the bigger obstacle. Certainly, the Hawthorne viaduct could come down.

  31. Does this ‘semi-subway’ idea have a portal below the Morrison Bridge ramp on SW 1st? I suppose it would run due west under Morrison, under I-405, turn south under 18th to a portal near the Goose Hollow Station. Something like that? Stations at PGE Park, somewhere in Goose Hollow, bye bye Pioneer Square Starbucks, and Pioneer Place II. Something like that? That would be 4 stations, instead of today’s 7. I wonder how many minutes less it would take to travel through town? 8-10 minutes? Is it worth it?

  32. “8-10 minutes? Is it worth it?”

    MAX carries what, 200 people per train at capacity? 8 minutes * 200 people = 1.1 days worth of time saved, per train.

    yeah, that’s worth it.

  33. We should not place ‘speed’ or ‘travel time’ at the top of our list of priorities to look for in a transit system. People who drive do that along with cost. Comfort, convenience, reliability, ability to help direct growth, improve pedestrian infrastructure, reduce air and water pollution, reduce traffic, then speed and cost somewhere near the bottom along with transit vehicle paint job scheme.

  34. Does this ‘semi-subway’ idea have a portal below the Morrison Bridge ramp on SW 1st? I suppose it would run due west under Morrison, under I-405, turn south under 18th to a portal near the Goose Hollow Station. Something like that? [snip] I wonder how many minutes less it would take to travel through town? 8-10 minutes? Is it worth it?

    Actually, my “semi-subway” concept was more about increasing capacity than speed, trying to work out a way to expand the Blue Line to 4 car trains. Shorter travel time was secondary, eliminating a number of stations between Hollywood and Washington Park while making the rest of them longer.

    So I first assume that every station outside the core can be easily and fairly cheaply extended to handle four car trains (with the expensive exceptions of Washington Park and Sunset TC).

    My concept was get rid of Lloyd Center, Convention Center, Old Town/Chinatown, and Oak Street Stations. The remaining stations (7th Avenue, Rose Quarter and Skidmore Fountain) are expanded to four-car stations.

    As you anticipated, MAX enters a tunnel on 1st below the Morrison Bridge. If the Public Market goes in under the Morrison Bridge, I’d put a new station there, just outside the tunnel portal. It would replace Oak Street Station and the MAX stations on First (Yamhill) and Third (Morrison).

    Both tracks go under Morrison. The tunnel is cheap and shallow: a basic trench-and-cover job, with no tunnel boring needed. There’s one major underground station (this was Bob’s twist; I proposed two stations originally) straddling Broadway and Park; this serves the Transit Mall to the east and the Streetcar to the west. On the surface, Morrison from First to Twelfth is a one-lane street with parking on both sides and wide sidewalks. This will leave plenty of room to build subway station entrances where needed: simply squeeze Morrison down to a single lane with no parking above the station. At Twelfth Avenuue, the single lane ends with a right-hand turn.

    Morrison is closed to traffic between Twelfth and Thirteenth, where the tracks come to the surface. Both tracks cross the viaduct and follow Morrison to PGE Park. From Thirteenth to Eighteenth, MAX on Morrison would look a lot like First Avenue or Holladay Street.

    PGE Park station goes away, and Kings Hill Station is extended to 400 feet between Salmon and Yamhill. This probably would mean widening the platform as well, to support large crowds at PGE Park events.

    Goose Hollow Station is either expanded to 400 feet or removed. If it’s removed, I’d put MAX on a viaduct over the corner of Eighteenth and Jefferson, to allow for faster service and to reduce interference with traffic.

    This would leave an orphan MAX track on Yamhill. My suggestion is to turn Yamhill and Taylor into a streetcar couplet from First Avenue to Eighteenth, then along Eighteenth to join up with the (proposed) Burnside streetcar line. The existing Eighteenth and Yamhill MAX Station would thus become a streetcar station serving PGE Park.

  35. combined with the $72M already committed in local match

    How much of that “already committed local match” is coming from the City of Portland, Multnomah County, and METRO…all of whom are facing major budget cutting?

    And where are the operating revenues coming from to actually RUN the streetcar?

    Just asking…

  36. The local match is composed of a variety of sources (which we have discussed here before) including an LID, TIF funds, Federal flexible funds (programmed via Metro but not from Metro’s budget).

    So sure, you can argue that TIF funds would go back the general fund of the City and County if the districts were closed out earlier, but I’d counter argue that the Streetcar will increase property values enough that in the end those governments are better off (yes, I understand that depends on eventually closing the districts and we’re giving up current revenue to get future revenue).

    On the operating side, TriMet and the City each pledged $1M annually toward operations without identifying specific sources at the time of the Federal application. Between now and 2011, those sources will need to be identified. In fact, I hope that we’ll identify more, so we can run from OMSI to PSU, not just OMSI to the Pearl.

  37. Douglas,
    that is a very interesting and well-thought out proposal.

    it seems like a real solution to the problems of speed and capacity through downtown, while avoiding the high cost of a full tunnel.

    I would always prefer a full on tunnel route, including under the river, but its an especially intriguing idea because, there is little chance of a prject like that once one realizes that some of the most interesting projects in the portland area will cost in the 10s of Billions (consider relocating the Eastbank freeway & Mainline freight railway, I5 thru North Port expansion, & a MAX subway, etc.),

    Yet if we were to implement something like your proposal for MAX, and just eliminate the Marquam and the Eastbank freeway, we could achieve many of the advangtages of these mega projects at a low cost…

  38. Well Doug, it’s an interesting idea, but like speed, capacity is a variable. I’ve always argued against 4-car trainsets using Metro regional land-use and development formula.

    There a high demand for travel during rush hours. At no other time is there this much demand that seemingly requires that much capacity. However, were MAX to run 4-car trainsets, we’d be trying to maintain a travel pattern (based on development) that it can’t meet. And most of the need would still be met driving. MAX 4-car trainsets would still run less than half full in the reverse-commute direction and off-rush hours.

    The only way to change this paradigm is to guide growth along MAX stations so that the very need to commute is reduced, eliminating the ‘perceived need’ for 4-car MAX trainsets.

    Picture Hillsboro built into a vibrant commercial/residential center that builds MAX ridership in the reverse-commute direction at all hours of operation. The jobs created reduces Hillsboro resident’s need to commute via MAX and driving.

    Anyway…. If both MAX tracks surface on Morrison east of I-405, a 2-car trainset could still stop at PGE Park and Goose Hollow, nix the Multnomah Athletic Club stop. Your semi-subway would have 2 stations replacing 4 surface stops. Maximum time saved is probably 5 minutes. I’m not sure it’s worth it. Nor am I sure a portal can be built in the one block east of I-405.

  39. Can we hear again why we are wasting money on toy trains and streetcars named desire (or S.L.U.T)?

    Wasn’t it supposed to be to reduce driving?

    Well, just look at Metros’s driving numbers and per-capita driving increased in Portland MORE than it increased on Vancouver.

    What a waste. $2 Billion dollars and per capita driving increased more in Portland But a lot of big campaign donors made a lot of money while our police, fire, schools and roads suffered.

    As to causing development, the liars of the streetcar even claim development credit for a church parking lot and a new building at PSC. Of course the real incentive for development is all the government subsidies. Like TIF, tax abatements, low interest loans, below market land. Just the usual stuff of legalized graft. See DebunkingPortland.com

    Thanks
    JK

  40. toy trains and streetcars named desire (or S.L.U.T)?

    There actually was a streetcar named “Desire” (from which the famous play derived its name) — a very popular and well-loved line in the past — there is talk of reviving it.

    There is not, however, a streetcar anywhere formally named “S.L.U.T.”, although some locals use the acronym as an ironic term of affection, and a a number of the more vocal streetcar critics have embraced it as some kind of pejorative.

    I wonder how many “teabaggers” oppose the “S.L.U.T.”?

  41. Let me just say that I think the stop spacing in the February 2009 loop map is pretty decent. But what about setting the platforms AWAY from the intersections so a single vehicle or two doesn’t mean that the streetcar has to wait for the green signal to get up to the platform and then wait for another signal cycle after passengers have been (un)loaded.

    And, moreover, I strongly believe that the money spent on putting MAX on the Portland Mall should have been put towards a down payment on a complete, Goose Hollow-Lloyd District tunnel. The Steel Bridge and the Rose Quarter junction are and will be major issues with the MAX system and need to be addressed if MAX is going to be a high-quality system.

    Building a tunnel would help out the entire system through lower operating costs (longer trip times=more labor time needed), higher ridership (attracted by faster service) and increased reliability (due to less disruptions because of crashes, parades and other events). Adding rail transit to the surface makes it seem like we’re adding more eggs to the central city basket.

    That being said, I wish we could solve the real problem and make it so streetcars and other things aren’t needed to attract development to where it is most efficient to put it.

  42. Well, just look at Metros’s driving numbers and per-capita driving increased in Portland MORE than it increased on Vancouver.

    JK didn’t provide a specific link for that, but here is a table from Metro showing Portland-only and Portland-Vancouver per-capita VMT from 1990-2007. I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader to evaluate whether JK’s specific point is a cause for concern.

    http://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=26796

  43. “So I first assume that every station outside the core can be easily and fairly cheaply extended to handle four car trains (with the expensive exceptions of Washington Park and Sunset TC)”

    I posit that is a faulty assumption. Every station in the entire system is designed to handle only 2 car trains, which pretty much nullifies all this talk of grade separation downtown. It’s not just a matter of extending platforms; it will require removing and re-aligning track and catenary, moving and re-installing signal boxes and substations, basically all the station infrastructure will have to be moved. In some cases, such as on Interstate, it will also require significant reconstruction of the street and re-alignment of freeway-bound traffic patterns, such that it is probably not even possible (Prescott, for example, would be very difficult). I estimate it will cost upwards of 10 million dollars for each station. I don’t even want to guess how much Washington Park and Sunset would cost. Way too much to ever happen. In the aggregate it would cost as much a new line. We could do a few stations on each line and run express trains, if there was room for passing tracks, which of course there isn’t.

    In 1992 PDOT did a study called Downtown Light Rail Tunnel Feasibility Analysis, or something like that. One of the key recommendations was “all future light rail stations should be built to handle 4-car trains.” Of course we ignored that advice, and we’re going to pay a lot more for it later. “Value engineering” at work. That we continue to build 2-car stations is mind-bogglingly short sighted.

  44. Grant –

    I’m not quite that pessimistic. An informal Google Earth survey of the Blue Line shows that there is enough ROW at most stations to accommodate the extra track length.

    You are correct that substations will need to be moved at a number of stops — but by the time we ever got around to doing such a thing, it could be synchronized with life cycle upgrades to the substations. In other words, when the time comes to overhaul the equipment inside a substation, we instead build a new one in a new location, and then remove the original. If the old equipment is pristine and in fact doesn’t need to be upgraded, we can “ripple” the reconstruction, moving equipment to new locations without taking everything offline at once.

    Now, my preference would be to simply run more trains with shorter headways, but the way we’ve built the system, the Steel Bridge is a throttle on headways and we’ll effectively saturate it in a decade or so.

    So perhaps a replacement river crossing with multiple light rail tracks, and a reconfigured Rose Quarter to prevent trains from needing to cross paths, would do the trick. But it would also take a commitment to provide the operating funds to run more trains on shorter headways, and we know that at least in today’s world, capital dollars are easier to find than operating dollars.

  45. So are we going to be forever tweaking the toy train system? The only line we have so far is the one in “Red.” Why doesn’t someone figure out how to do it right the first time? I’m told that’s a key to successful building.

  46. So perhaps a replacement river crossing with multiple light rail tracks, and a reconfigured Rose Quarter to prevent trains from needing to cross paths, would do the trick.

    That one’s easy. Close the Steel Bridge to cars. Put four tracks on it. Red, Blue and Green (which would run to 11th Avenue, not PSU) use the southernmost tracks. The Yellow Line (and maybe a future Orange Line) uses the northern tracks and goes down the transit mall.

    Easy, inexpensive, and it would eliminate any need for any train to cross tracks.

  47. Does anyone know a ballpark cost estimate for a full central city tunnel between Lloyd center and Goose hollow?

    would it really be that much? Considering we’d only have to build 5 or so underground stations, and the tunnel would be only about a mile long, it seems like it might not be all that expensive…

  48. Back during the planning for the Salmon Creek-to-Oregon City LRT planning process. Tri-Met ballparked the cost of a Union Station to PSU tunnel with three stations at $260 million MORE than a surface alignment — and that was about twelve years ago.

    A full-out tunnel from Lloyd Center (assume the portal is under the Lloyd Cinemas parking lot) to Goose Hollow (assume the portal is under 18th, Jefferson, or Columbia) would be about 2 3/4 miles long, and would involve tunneling under the Willamette.

    Even with “cut and cover” tunneling and stations over most of its length, yeah, it probably would “really be that much.” It wouldn’t surprise me if it was a million dollar project.

    Functionally, the “semi-subway” would provide almost the same benefits (longer trains, faster travel — but not quite as fast as a full subway) at a fraction of the cost.

    I posit that is a faulty assumption. Every station in the entire system is designed to handle only 2 car trains, which pretty much nullifies all this talk of grade separation downtown. It’s not just a matter of extending platforms; it will require removing and re-aligning track and catenary, moving and re-installing signal boxes and substations, basically all the station infrastructure will have to be moved.

    I posit a series of faulty assumptions there. The vast majority of Blue Line stations really are just a matter of extending platforms. Moving signal boxes, sensors and so forth wouldn’t cost all that much. The need to actually re-align track and catenary is almost non-existent. Certainly, it would be needed at Elmonica and Orenco. PROBABLY at Willow Creek and the four stations at the end of the line in Hillsboro. MAYBE Cleveland Avenue, Gateway, the freeway stations along I-84. Beaverton TC, and Willow Creek. (But then, maybe not, if Tri-Met is allowed to “skinny down” the platforms out toward the end.)

    In most of those cases, the track-and-catenary work would involve moving only short segment of track to make room for a long platform.

    There may be a need to do some minor road work at a few spots along Burnside to accommodate longer station platforms. Also, this would involve a change in traffic patterns at Gresham Transit Center because at least one cross street would need to be closed.

    Finally, most stations would need to change pedestrian traffic patterns to allow for longer platforms.

    I estimate it will cost upwards of 10 million dollars for each station. I don’t even want to guess how much Washington Park and Sunset would cost. Way too much to ever happen.

    I estimate that number is high by at least a factor of ten. Most stations would be in the low six-figure range — the cost of extending a platform and moving signal boxes.

    Washington Park and Sunset require no track changes. At Sunset the cost is rebuilding the viaduct at the east end of the platform to allow a longer platforms.

    At Washington Park, the cost is whatever it takes to remodel the ends of the stations to extend platforms perhaps eighty feet each way. It looks to me like the station itself extends that far; it’s more a matter of moving around what’s already down there than carving out larger tunnels.

    Now, my preference would be to simply run more trains with shorter headways,

    That’s good for the short run. I’m looking ahead to the day when we need to expand capacity, and looking for a cost-effective way to do it. I disagree that the bottleneck is the Steel Bridge — like I mentioned above, we can close it to cars, double the track capacity, and eliminate the bottleneck. The real bottleneck is Gateway-to-Rose Quarter segment, which carries three lines. When that fills up, Tri-Met can either (a) find a way to run four-car trains on the east-west main line, or (b) combine Red and Green into an Airport-to-Clackamas line with transfer to (highly frequent) Blue lines Gateway. My preference would be longer trains, as long as there’s a cost-effective way to do it.

  49. 5 light rail stations in a mile? That, right there, is why light rail is so SLOW.

    I remember riding the BUS in Phoenix a few years back, and noticed how it could go from Tempe to Scottsdale (about 5 miles of pretty heavy traffic) in about 10 minutes. Their secret? Bus stops are spaced between a quarter and half mile apart. Combined with the 6 lane streets and signal timing, and you have a pretty reasonable transit system– and that is all by bus!

    Portland light rail is supposed to be “express.” Portland has no express bus routes because of it. Even the name MAX suggests it. Having more then one stop every few miles makes it into a glorified streetcar.

  50. 5 light rail stations in a mile?

    Not really …

    I’m assuming you’re referring to Nate’s comment. As the crow flies, the distance between the Lloyd Center station and the Goose Hollow station is 2.25 miles.

    Assuming the end-points count as two stations, that leaves 3 stations within the 2.25 miles (which seams reasonable to serve different areas of downtown), a distance of 3/4 of a mile between stations.

    Note that those 3 stations would be in lieu of the 12 stations that exist today between Lloyd Center and Goose Hollow.

    Even if Nate actually meant 5 stations between Lloyd Center and Goose Hollow (rather than 3), that would be a stop spacing of .45 miles, and 7 fewer stops than we have today.

    Outside of downtown, MAX actually does run like something between a limited-stop and express service, with stop spacing every 1/2 mile or so.

    Given that the catchment area (the distance people are willing to walk to a station) is about a .5 mile radius (some say a bit wider), it makes sense to have station spacing of about that length for a populated (or slated-to-be populated) area, so that there are no gaps in service for the corridor.

  51. I remember riding the BUS in Phoenix a few years back, and noticed how it could go from Tempe to Scottsdale (about 5 miles of pretty heavy traffic) in about 10 minutes.

    I’m curious to know more about that trip segment… can you give an origin-destination pair?

    Google Maps shows that by car using the route 101 highway, it’s 14.9 miles from the city center of Tempe to the city center of Scottsdale.

    The Valley Metro transit agency’s route map shows a line #72 running from the Tempe Transit Center along Rural Rd. / Scottsdale Rd. to Shea Blvd. in Scottsdale — a distance of 11.4 miles.

    The schedule shows a #72 departing at 8AM makes this journey in 54 minutes.
    http://www.valleymetro.org/bus_schedules/bus_routes/722.html

    That’s an average speed of 12.66mph, which is slower than MAX’s system average of 19.3mph. (TriMet’s system average for buses is 14.9mph, faster than the Tempe-to-Scottsdale bus.)

    Now, Valley Metro operates an express bus, #511, which remains on the freeway only (which isn’t exactly a pleasant walk from Tempe Transit Center), but is the closest parallel to the #72. There are only 4 daily northbound runs of this express, and none between 8am and 4pm. When it does run, it gets you from Apache in Tempe to Shea in Scottsdale, a distance of 11.8 miles, in 32 minutes, or an average speed of 22mph.

    MAX along freeway segments is faster than that express bus — Lloyd Center to Gateway, for example, is 4.87 miles and MAX does that in 11 minutes, an average of 26.5mph.

  52. Bob R.“Given that the catchment area (the distance people are willing to walk to a station) is about a .5 mile radius (some say a bit wider), it makes sense to have station spacing of about that length for a populated (or slated-to-be populated) area, so that there are no gaps in service for the corridor.”

    ws: I agree with having stops that service a certain area, say 1/2 mile radius (I believe Calthorpe has 2,000 feet radius equating to about 10 minute walk). However, there’s two stops at PGE park that are 500-600 ft (.1 mile apart), not to mention the first Goose Hollow is a bit more than 1,000 walking feet via sidewalk to the next PGE stop.

    Given the short, 200 ft blocks, connectivity across i-405, and relatively flat downtown — some stops should probably be removed, and in doing so could still serve ADA interests as well.

    Certainly the stops are a bit more complex than just “distancing them out” and were placed for current land-uses and future planned land-uses; I just feel that removing one or two would greatly improve service and being even more people to the MAX.

    Especially considering the future street car improvements that are planned.

  53. Given the short, 200 ft blocks, connectivity across i-405, and relatively flat downtown — some stops should probably be removed

    Fully agreed.

  54. Bob R;

    When are you going to get on one of the policy making boards regarding these topics?

    Guess you and Adron don’t have any political favors that are owed to you.

    Maybe you should up your political contributions so you can get appointed!

  55. TriMet hired an engineering consulting firm to review the AORTA proposal for a subway between Lloyd Center and Goose Hollow, done maybe 5 years ago. The price was $1 to $1.2 billion. Seemed like a lot then. Compared with the CRC, seems like a bargain now. Then we could add the current downtown MAX alignment to the Streetcar system.

  56. The East Side “Big Pipe” sewer project is a tunnel 6-miles long, 22 feet in diameter.

    The Westside MAX tunnels are 21 feet in diameter.

    If we can build a subway for sewage, we can build a subway for people.

  57. Well, since my painstakingly detailed explanation for opposing 4-car MAX trainsets is being ignored, I’ll just say that 4-car trainsets is not a good idea and never will be, period, end of story.

    Whoever doesn’t agree with my reasoning can go to Metro and have someone there explain it. It’s based on their expert principles of land-use and development.

    Whoever thinks 2-car MAX trainsets are ‘mind-bogglingly short-sighted’ is absolutely mistaken.

    MAX should not be designed to serve commuters because doing so increases the demand for commuting beyond even 4-car capacity. And, it leaves trainsets running in the reverse-commute direction and off-rush hours even more woefully underused than they are now.

  58. 4-car trainsets is not a good idea and never will be, period, end of story.

    4-car trainsets will be a good idea when the demand is there to support them, period, end of story. When we’re running as many trains as the route can support and the two-car trainsets are packed to overloading, that’s when it will be time for four-car trains. If you’re positive “never will be” is the “end of story,” you’ve got a much better crystal ball than most of us.

    Oh, and also:

    Your semi-subway would have 2 stations replacing 4 surface stops. Maximum time saved is probably 5 minutes.

    Actually, it would remove seven stops from the affected segment Hollywood to Washington Park segment. Figure time savings of ten to twelve minutes for through-traffic. But like I said, it’s about increased capacity, not speed. I see no point in building a tunnel if we’re only going to run two-car train sets. And while I like the idea of reducing the need for commuting with more twenty-minute neighborhoods, we have no way to guarantee that outcome.

  59. Regarding the 4 car trainsets as a negative…

    the Metro area that MAX currently serves is already built out. High capacity 4 car trainsets would only serve those populations more effectively. What is the problem with increasing density in LRT corridors? Thats not increasing sprawl or working against Metro’s goals…

    In regard to the downtown MAX tunnel, I think 1.2 billion is a small price to pay… stations at Rose Garden, Burnside & 2nd, Pioneer Sq, and Civic stadium. the Milwaukie MAX is estimated at 1.4 billion. whats the problem? at that price, it should be one of the top rated projects at Trimet along with Barbur MAX and Powell Max

  60. Sorry, forgot to add:

    Douglas, what do estimate is the cost of your proposal for a semi subway?
    assuming that sorting out the steel bridge bottleneck, and every other feature neccessary to making the system a “real” rapid transit system downtown is accounted for…

  61. The MAX Blue Line is 1/4 utilized at its outer lengths of track. If Gresham and Hillsboro develop higher density housing, MAX will still be 1/4 utilized off-rush hours and in the reverse-commute direction. If however, Gresham and Hillsboro develop in a mixed-use fashion, the demand to commute downtown and elsewhere (via MAX and freeways) will go down. And, the demand to take MAX to these cities will go up, filling the empty seats, increasing MAX utilization off-rush hours.

    If we don’t plan to reduce the need to commute, 4-car MAX trains will do no good. If we must plan to reduce commuting, there is no need for 4-car MAX trains. This should not be that difficult to understand. Planning for 4-car MAX trains is the same mindset that suggests widening the freeways will relieve rush hour traffic; and everybody knows that hasn’t worked.

  62. I don’t follow that argument at all. We shouldn’t increase MAX service if more people use it? We should put more buses on the road because segments of the route aren’t fully utilized?

    Planning for 4-car MAX trains is the same mindset that suggests widening the freeways will relieve rush hour traffic; and everybody knows that hasn’t worked.

    No, planning for 4-car MAX trains is the same mindset that suggests carpooling instead of single-occupancy vehicles to relieve rush hour congestion. It means you get the same number of vehicles (train sets), same number of lanes (tracks), and the same number of drivers (one per set), but carry twice as many passengers within the same infrastructure.

    The mindset that leads to “widening the freeway” would be to build a new parallel MAX line because the existing route is overcrowded four hours a day.

  63. Wells, I dont agree with your logic.

    Contemperary planning should of course promote mixed use development with the goal of having jobs, residences, services and shopping spread across the metro region, so that everything is accessible by walking or biking.

    As you say, this policy will reduce transit usage, at least to some extent.
    But consider that many 100s of thousands of new people will be populating the portland region in the coming years.
    And consider that there will always be a need for some people to commute. And people will always have reasons to travel across the region.

    Eventually 4 car trainsets will be necessary in the portland region, and its even possible that the CentralCity>Suburb trains become just as full of “reverse” commuters as the Suburb>CentralCity trains.

  64. Correction: The second sentence of my last post should have read: “We shouldn’t put more buses on the road because segments of the route aren’t fully utilized?”

    Read twice, post once.

  65. We forget light rail’s virtue…it can be high speed on grade separated ROW and still fit in with slow downtown traffic. MAX thru downtown could pick up five minutes by simply (nothing is really simple) closing or restricting use of three stations that are within 2 blocks of another station, Salmon St/Kings Hill, Pioneer Place and Convention Center.
    Put cars in tunnels, leave transit on the street.

  66. I estimate that number is high by at least a factor of ten. Most stations would be in the low six-figure range — the cost of extending a platform and moving signal boxes.

    Well, we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one. The actual amount isn’t really the point I was making; rather I am pointing out the fallacy of building stations that need significant reconstruction work to be extended, when they should be designed that way up front.

    At Washington Park, the cost is whatever it takes to remodel the ends of the stations to extend platforms perhaps eighty feet each way. It looks to me like the station itself extends that far; it’s more a matter of moving around what’s already down there than carving out larger tunnels.

    Not true…2-car trains run the length of the existing station. Check it out next time you’re down there. The tunnel would need to be extended.

  67. I hadn’t seen it mentioned, but maybe if we do the downtown tunnel idea we should look at keeping the Red Line on the surface and put the Blue Line in the tunnel.

    It would likely avoid a lot of the opposition from people who’d feel they’re losing their stop, but would still speed up the trains for those trying to bypass downtown.

  68. Doug. Widening freeways is always done solely to accommodate rush hour commuting. Increasing MAX capacity with 4-car trainsets would likewise be an attempt to accommodate the same rush hour commuting.

    The real problem is a result of land-use and development patterns that require commuting in all directions, not just toward central city. Economically dysfunctional suburbs force residents to work, shop, play, seek healthcare and education elsewhere. Increasing MAX capacity will not increase demand for travel to the suburbs.

    Your statement, “Contemporary planning that promotes mixed-use development, will reduce transit usage..” is wrong. Mixed-use development will indeed reduce transit use during rush hours, but it will increase transit use in the reverse-commute direction and off-rush hours, resulting in a net increase in transit use.

    Your theories are very much Old School. They may be ‘contemporary’ because so many people still cling to these long obsolete theories, but they’re not innovative, not progressive, not New School at all. Even members of AORTA still hold obsolete notions in transit design.

  69. Well, I believe the city owns that massive tunnel digger after the “big pipe” is put in. Get digging.

    Lenny AndersonPut cars in tunnels, leave transit on the street.

    ws: Subsurface highways could really help, maybe even give back some viable real estate to the city for development vs. having a mega highway structure on the east bank.

    Makes me even more against the CRC seeing what we can do here in Portland instead. A better bridge just means more traffic in Portland with limited funds to deal with the actual congestion vs. congestion created by SOV-only crowd.

  70. What happened to the tunnel boring machines used to build the MAX tunnel on the Westside? If memory serves, they simply bored a tunnel and left them there for future use. Does anyone recall for sure?

  71. Tunnel Boring Machines are expensive and usually are moved from job-to-job around the world, and overhauled/reconfigured, etc.

  72. Somewhere I heard that BES bought “Rosie” which is now doing the 22′ diameter eastside Big Pipe.
    Another point on MAX thru downtown…how many trips are to downtown destinations vs thru trips.
    If you are going the Pioneer Courthouse Sq, then you only suffer a portion of the slow trip, so its not so bad.
    Overall I agree with Wells…regional planning needs to lead to development patterns that encourage bi-directional and shorter transit trips. Huge investments to reduce peak hour congestion on highways or transit are a waste of money.

  73. i seem to be getting confused here…

    wells, i take it that you are saying that transit capacity is essentially the same as road capacity, or at least a reliance on that capacity is a reflection of a disfunctional city.

    is that correct?

    i believe that even in a “perfectly” functional city region, transit is necessary. do you not agree? and the capacity of the transit system is entirely dependent on how many people live there. agreed? so what youre really saying then is that you have put a subjective marker on the portland region’s transit capacity… and that any capacity beyond your arbitrary estimation is a prop to support a disfunctional city?

    in an ideal city, one would work and do the regular life stuff within walking distance of ones residence. but of course not all work trips, and certainly not ALL trips, will be possible by walking. thats where transit comes in. The idea that rush hour or peak time on transit and roads is purely a product of commuters is flat out wrong. yes, in an ideal city the peak hour “curve” on the graph would be more even throughout the day, but it would still exist, after all, we are all human and pretty much all on similar schedules… school work, shopping, dinner, parties etc…

  74. Grant said:

    Not true…2-car trains run the length of the existing station. Check it out next time you’re down there. The tunnel would need to be extended.

    I have checked it out. The trains run the length of the existing platform. The station itself is longer than the platform — note the locations of the elevators to the east and west. Also, as you’re entering or leaving the station on MAX, you can see darkened access ways into the station. The station itself is at least 300 feet long (the distance between the elevators) and may be a bit longer than that.

    rather I am pointing out the fallacy of building stations that need significant reconstruction work to be extended, when they should be designed that way up front.

    I agree; they should have been designed that way up front. The fact remains that the vast majority of stations can be adapted to four-car platforms with minimal work. Doubling the capacity of the system can be done at a fraction of the cost of building it in the first place. Whether that’s desirable is another question, as Wells keeps point out.

    Wells, I still don’t buy it.

    Widening freeways is always done solely to accommodate rush hour commuting. Increasing MAX capacity with 4-car trainsets would likewise be an attempt to accommodate the same rush hour commuting.

    Carpooling is done to accommodate rush-hour commuting. I don’t get where you’re coming from here, unless you propose simply not accommodating peak use at all. That would mean no carpooling, larger buses, longer trains, or other technique to maximize the use of existing infrastructure and drivers. That simply doesn’t make sense to me. There will always be periods of peak usage in the system, and I consider it a far better use of resources to meet peak demand with more people in each vehicle than trying to widen roads. “Four car trains” is comparable to more effective carpooling, not adding lanes.

  75. I agree with Wells’ point. To the maximum extent possible, we should be reducing travel distances within the region. We should look to improve access to employment, goods and services as our first order of business.

  76. Doug, ‘more effective carpooling’ does not make a good analogy for increasing MAX capacity to 4-car trainsets. Carpooling is a transit system that works only during the rush hours and only in the commute direction. 4-car MAX trains would run in both directions during rush hours. And, the cost of converting MAX to run 4-car trains is as expensive as widening freeways. The carpooling analogy makes it look inexpensive. The better analogy is 4-car MAX = widened freeways.

    Bay Area BART is a 10-car system. BART runs 10-car trainsets only during the rush hours. The rest of the time, 4-car trainsets are run about 1/3 full in both directions. Yet, with all this capacity, Bay Area freeways are gridlock during rush hours and nearly as bad the rest of the time. What’s wrong with this picture?

    Should BART increase capacity to 20-car trainsets? Your only answer, Doug, is yes. Capacity, like speed, is a variable. The real problem has to do with land-use and development patterns that generate too much demand for long-distance commuting and travel for other purposes. Neglect the land-use element in transit design, and a 4-car MAX system would backfire, exactly as it has in the Bay Area.

  77. One problem facing transit planners, of course, is that industry tends to congregate in industrial areas–and some types of jobs are inherently coupled to physical locations. Some types of job–in particular, the industrial type which are necessary for an economy to be function (the type which brings cash into town)–are generally incompatible with the notion of a “20 minute village”.

    The Port of Portland terminals gotta be where the rivers are. We can’t have a shipping terminal out in Hillsboro, for the obvious reason that ships cannot navigate there. Even industries which are more portable still function best with large economies of scale–meaning large operations which employ lots of folks from far and wide, not boutique manufacturers who can fit in the suite between Starbucks and the local B of A branch.

    So…we need to have means of reasonably efficient transportation (both people, and goods and services) across the region. Transit is an important part of that; 20-minute neighborhoods are also a key component–but they cannot and should not be intended to eliminate the need for transit.

    One thing Portland does well is that we have a good industrial base in the suburbs; particularly Washington County and Gresham. The trains at rush hour, in general, aren’t empty in one direction (even if they are fuller one way than the other). The Bay Area, on the other hand, has the situation where much of the industrial base is located on the SF peninsula–but many, many people cannot afford to live there, and have to commute from across the bay. Be happy that Portland’s land use patterns aren’t anywhere near as dysfunctional.

  78. Let’s go back to the original purpose of this thread, the Eastside streetcar loop. Bob said

    The February ’09 map can be seen here:
    http://www.portlandstreetcar.org/pdf/loop_fact_sheet_and_map_feb09.pdf

    The same site has a newsletter dated Spring 2009 at

    http://portlandstreetcar.org/loop_newsletter.php

    which gives a tentative construction schedule. Specifically, these key milestones: waterline reconstruction beginning in May (this month), “made in Oregon” streetcars ordered in May (this month), and operation beginning Fall 2011.

    Bob, Chris: is this schedule current and realistic? That would be great.

    The United Streetcar (= Oregon Iron Works) site at

    http://www.unitedstreetcar.com

    has a nice collection of photos of the prototype car, which seems to be taking shape. Sure enough, it looks like the current Skoda/Inekon streetcar vehicles. What’s the realistic date when we see the prototype being tested on the existing Streetcar line?

    And how many cars will be ordered for the Eastside loop? Does the Federal money provide for sole-sourcing those “made in Oregon” cars? Will the factory be ready for that production run to support full operation in 2011?

    Mike Feldman

  79. Should BART increase capacity to 20-car trainsets? Your only answer, Doug, is yes.

    Not based on the information you provided. You start off talking about the length of BART trains at peak hour, then talk about congested freeways, and somehow conclude that I’d think BART needs 20-car trains?

    IF the facts were that BART’s 10-car trains were running full and leaving huge numbers of people at the platforms because there simply wasn’t room to board, and IF it wasn’t possible to increase service frequencies, and IF (as in the case of MAX) there was a reasonably affordable way to extend nearly all of the stations to handle longer trains, and IF the crowds waiting on the stations were heavy enough to fill 20-car trains (or if there was reasonable evidence that more people would show up if there was space) — then my answer would be, let’s take a look at it.

    But that’s a whole string of IFs that you didn’t cover.

    And, the cost of converting MAX to run 4-car trains is as expensive as widening freeways.

    We’d have to compare the actual numbers. What’s the cost of expanding Blue Line stations to 400 feet each (and buying more LRVs), compared to the cost of adding three lanes each way on I-84 from Troutdale to downtown, adding two more decks to the Marquam Bridge, drilling two more three-lane tunnels under the West Hills, and building out Hwy 26 to six lanes each way all the way to Hillsboro?

    Because if you’re trying to equate “double MAX capacity with longer platforms” to “adding freeway lanes”, that’s the only fair apples-to-apples comparison: double capacity vs. double capacity. And I’m reasonably sure that “the cost of converting MAX to run 4-car trains” is somewhere less than 1% as expensive as doubling freeway capacity from Gresham to Hillsboro.

    Sorry, but the carpool analogy is the better one. Existing trackway, same number of trains, but more passengers per driver.

  80. Yes, the schedule is real. The 1st prototype vehicle is scheduled to be delivered to our maintenance facility later this month. But it will go through a significant amount of burn-in testing before passengers are allowed on board…

  81. Chris said

    Yes, the schedule is real. The 1st prototype vehicle is scheduled to be delivered to our maintenance facility later this month. But it will go through a significant amount of burn-in testing before passengers are allowed on board…

    Nice. I guess the photos on the United Streetcar site are out of date already — in the latest of those shots, the prototype looked to be coming together, but not as nearly ready as you’re implying. They’re not very energetic in keeping their website up to date, are they?

    Well, good! Obviously it will need a lot of on-street testing before running in passenger service. Just watching from my 9th-floor window as it rolls down 11th Ave. will provide some excitement for a while.:-)

    To repeat from my earlier post – is it a done deal that the Feds are OK with sole-sourcing the Eastside fleet from United Streetcar? (One would hope so, as they paid for the prototype, but one never knows…)

    How many cars are actually involved? Will another 10 or so suffice?

    This could be really exciting as it comes to fruition. Now that we have a Federal admin that’s more streetcar-friendly than the last one, I hope United Streetcar will really be able to ramp up to be a credible bidder for other cities beyond PDX.

    Presumably Siemens, Bombardier, Kinki-Sharyo and CAF will continue to dominate the “big-streetcar” US light-rail market; hopefully United Streetcar will be able to grab at least a good share of the “small-streetcar”-class vehicles.

    And wouldn’t it be nice if Gomaco and/or Brookville really started to play seriously in that game? It’d be wonderful to have a domestic industry again with several competing manufacturers!

    Mike Feldman

  82. To repeat from my earlier post – is it a done deal that the Feds are OK with sole-sourcing the Eastside fleet from United Streetcar?

    The vehicles are actually being paid for by State Lottery Funds which came with the requirement that they be purchased from an Oregon manufacturer (not technically a sole source). This disallows the vehicles from being used for Federal matching, but my understanding is that we were able to work around this by swapping in other existing system investments that were eligible. I don’t know the full details.

    The $20M provided by the State will fund 6 or 7 vehicles, which is sufficient to operate the Loop from OMSI to the Pearl. Since our ambition is of course to eventually operate a ‘full loop’, we will need four or five additional vehicles and are working on funding scenarios for those now.

  83. Once the loop gets finished, what’s the plan for streetcar lines? Will some do 23rd to SoWa, some do the Pearl to OMSI, and a third route that loops it? Or just two lines, full loop and 23rd?

  84. Once the loop gets finished, what’s the plan for streetcar lines?

    There will be two lines:

    – 23rd to SoWa (and Lake Oswego someday)
    – The Loop, partial growing into a full loop

    The ‘partial’ portion of the Loop in the Federal application is Pearl to OMSI, but many of us hope we can figure out how to open it as PSU to OMSI or even RiverPlace to OMSI. Stay tuned.

  85. The Loop, partial growing into a full loop

    Have control sites been discussed for that situation? I’m just curious if they’ll be called loop clockwise/counter-clockwise or if they’ll have actual control sites like Lloyd Center/OMSI/etc.

    Either way, it seems like there will be potential for confusion.

  86. Have control sites been discussed for that situation?

    Well, that won’t really matter until a) the eastside streetcar is completed, b) the bridge for Milwaukie MAX is completed, c) streetcar tracks connecting to both sides of the bridge are completed, and d) operating money is found to run streetcars all the way down the westside and across the bridge.

  87. Well Doug, I shouldn’t discourage you from this 4-car MAX system idea. It’s a free country. Good luck maintaining your sanity in this quixotic endeaver.

    A 2nd Transbay Tube has long been proposed for the Bay Area because the ‘perceived’ need to commute from Oakland to San Francisco has grown beyond BART capacity. A 2nd Transbay Tube would make traffic congestion worse in the long run if nothing is done to reduce the need to commute. Once the need to commute is reduced, BART could run 4-car trainsets all day and reduce station platforms accordingly.

  88. As stated above, the situation in the Portland metro area differs quite a bit from the situation in the Bay Area.

    Among the high-tech firms in the Bay, there is still a great deal of prestige associated with having a Silicon Valley address–a venture which hung its shingle in Pleasanton or some other East Bay bedroom community would instantly be seen as second-rate (and probably would have a harder time attracting resources such as venture capital and talent). Absurd? Certainly. But Silicon Valley is widely famous for being in love with itself–hence the large numbers of people having to cross the bay each morning and evening.

    I agree with you that the “best” solution to transportation issues in the Bay Area would be a better dispersion of jobs–rather than having so many concentrated in that stretch of land between San Jose and San Francisco.

    Portland land-use patterns are, FTMP, far less extreme. Whether or not going to four-car MAX trains is a pragmatic solution to future transportation problems, I don’t know. What I do know is that Portland commuters aren’t all headed in the same direction.

  89. Wells Said: “All right! Let the domino effect begin.”
    How true since streetcars are not sustainable let alone financially self-sustainable. The wasteful taxpayer spending is only getting started just like the tip of the iceberg that sunk the Titanic.
    To start with, producing the steel rails for streetcars and digging up the streets to put them in is less than eco friendly and harmful to the environment taking decades to recover effects, and the up front financial costs for constructing a streetcar system will never be recoverable through fares. The streetcar will also increase congestion on MLK, Grand and the Broadway Bridge. Snail rail streetcars operating in mixed traffic stop and obstruct motor vehicle lanes when boarding passengers. Operational costs will need to be subsidized by milking taxpayers and motorists. And then there is the myth that a streetcar line spurs development which has yet to be done in large scale without development tax breaks and subsidies, and property tax abatements handed out like free candy to big developers. This is especially true in that transit operations in some form have taken place on the majority of the streetcar routing for nearly a century.

    Far more sustainable would be an investment in an electric trolley bus system. Electric trolley busses can pull over to the curb when boarding passengers and let other traffic pass thereby reducing stop and go traffic which increases fuel economy for motorists. Additionally, an electric trolley bus system would only require that overhead wires to be installed above the streets making the upfront costs considerably less expensive thereby providing more bang for the taxpayer buck.

    The dominos are definitely falling and it will be the taxpayers picking up the tab for this recluse spending on this hobby rail sham of a tram on wheels.

  90. Terry,

    I know you prefer buses over rail. However, the operational costs of an electric busy system would like be *more* expensive than those of a streetcar system. In addition, the capital costs would be fairly comparable considering that the the cost of catenary wires and station platforms makes up a huge chunk of the contruction cost.

    Basically, the bus system you advocate would be a bit cheaper in the beginning, but cost more over time due to the higher operational costs per rider.

    How then, is your proposal advantageous?

  91. Actually, trolley buses don’t require catenary systems, just cheaper simple overhead wires. Bus stop needs are the same as for other bus systems – no special platforms required.

    The operational cost question has a lot of variables – maximum passenger load, average load, vehicle weight, rolling resistance, etc. An articulated trolley bus could very easily have comparable operating expenses with a streetcar. So could a 40 foot trolley bus on a low to moderate demand line.

    A significant advantage of the trolley bus is its ability to deal with hills. Streetcars have higher top speeds, but need a lot more time and distance to stop – even using emergency braking. Catenary systems are usually required on higher speed sections.

    Even so, I still think that electric buses with self contained energy storage systems will obviate trolley bus systems in the surprisingly near future.

  92. Converting the 8 bus to OHSU to electric trolley operation should be considered; maybe also the 15 to NW, but that technology will never duplicate Streetcar, especially in a corridor that already has a publicly owned rail ROW or on urban corridors destined for more density.
    I hope the next Streetcar extension is up Broadway/Weidler at least as far as NE 24th. This couplet has motor vehicle lanes to spare, already is seeing higher density housing and and has plenty of underutilized property within a block or two.

  93. Terry, it just seems like your ideology, or some chip on your shoulder, is a bias on your conclusions and remedial suggestions. The Portland Streetcar does what at best was hoped it would do, get people using transit where it was most necessary.

    I expect streetcar lines on MLK and Grand to slow traffic speeds, thus making those dangerous speedways safer for pedestrians to cross, thus better for businesses in the area.

    [Moderator: Personally-directed remark removed.]

  94. nate wrote: the operational costs of an electric busy system would like be *more* expensive than those of a streetcar system. In addition, the capital costs would be fairly comparable considering that the the cost of catenary wires and station platforms makes up a huge chunk of the contruction cost.

    Basically, the bus system you advocate would be a bit cheaper in the beginning, but cost more over time due to the higher operational costs per rider.

    How do you figure that a trolleybus is more expensive than a streetcar?

    An articulated 60′ trolleybus offers comparable capacity to a streetcar but costs a fraction that of a streetcar.

    Labor is identical.

    Electric consumption is identical.

    Costs to build out the overhead system is identical.

    Streetcar requires tracks which costs more. Trolleybus doesn’t require track, but could cause more pavement maintenance. If street is constructed properly (especially to begin with) then streetcar is less expensive.

    The only argument that trolleybus is more expensive than streetcar/light rail is if you have sufficient ridership to demand a vehicle larger than a trolleybus on a regular basis so that the alternative is more frequent trolleybus. On the other hand, having a trolleybus that is full every five minutes, while charging a fare for each ride, is likely going to cover its costs (just like TriMet’s 72 bus does – and it’s a diesel bus burning diesel purchased on a fuel hedge that is higher than the street price for diesel) so whether it’s “more expensive” is a moot point.

    Yes – TriMet’s light rail system has an overall lower cost per boarding than the bus system but it’s not an apples-to-apples comparison. Light rail is not charged operational costs for many of its maintenance costs which a bus is charged in operations (as opposed to capital). TriMet has a lot of very costly bus operations (i.e. the bus to Boring which TriMet was unwilling to cancel) which weigh down the bus average along with poor operating practices (running express buses 60% of the time in non-revenue moves). But other buses do just as well, cost-wise, as light rail – even with the bus handicap that TriMet forces on the bus system to make buses look worse than they actually are.

  95. Wells wrote: I expect streetcar lines on MLK and Grand to slow traffic speeds, thus making those dangerous speedways safer for pedestrians to cross, thus better for businesses in the area.

    I could achieve your goal, without laying one inch of streetcar track.

    But as I pointed out on the thread regarding Interstate Avenue, it’s because the City of Portland refuses to unless a light rail/streetcar project is involved. PDOT could very, very, very easily start a streetscaping and pedestrian safety project on these streets by adding additional traffic signals, bulb-outs, pedestrian islands, and potentially even remove one lane of traffic. All without streetcar.

  96. PDOT could very, very, very easily start a streetscaping and pedestrian safety project

    But do they have the money to do it? If the improvements to Interstate were considered part of the light rail project, then they got a lot of the money from the Feds.

  97. But do they have the money to do it?

    Portland actually does to streetscape projects — Hawthorne and Sandy are the most recent examples, but Alberta wasn’t so long ago.

    And, approve or disapprove of the proposal, the Burnside-Couch couplet plan was initially proposed _without_ a streetcar component. The streetcar idea was added later, perhaps to sweeten the deal to residents who were objecting to increased traffic on Couch. (And the eastside Burnside-Couch couplet appears to be moving forward ahead of any proposed streetcar component.)

    So Portland does, in fact, do some streetscape projects.

    The street maintenance fee proposal which was withdrawn last year also would have funded streetscape projects.

    But with federally-funded rail projects in particular, these local streetscape improvements can be seen as “local match” which determines how much federal money is available, so it makes some sense, if you’re going to do rail projects anyway, to couple them with streetscape improvements. The downside to this, though, is it makes rail projects look more expensive than they actually would be as a “pure and simple” rail upgrade.

  98. But as I pointed out on the thread regarding Interstate Avenue, it’s because the City of Portland refuses to unless a light rail/streetcar project is involved.

    i disagree, Portland has done many pedestrian and non-rail transit enhancements, particularly with bulbouts and bus bulbs on neighborhood streets including large installations on alberta and sandy.

    that said eric i do agree with you that “streetscaping and pedestrian safety project on these streets by adding additional traffic signals, bulb-outs, pedestrian islands, and potentially even remove one lane of traffic” together would tame traffic much more than the streetcar alone (and i’m a streetcar supporter). under the proposed plan, the streetcar stops on MLK in the right most lane, meanwhile the 3 adjacent lanes continue to speed past at 40+ miles per hour in an unchanged fashion. taming MLK, Grand, Broadway, Weidler will require more traffic signals, street trees, two-way streets, bulbouts, traffic islands, narrower lanes, wider sidewalks, lowering speed limits through posted signs, possibly angled parking, less travel lanes, crosswalks (which hardly exist now), bus bulbouts, etc.

  99. [Moderator: Personally-directed portions of this comment have been removed.]

    Erik–

    The city hates busses? The city refuses to do streetscape projects unless it gets to put a choo-choo train in? Tri-Met is cooking its books to make busses look more expensive than they really are?

  100. I’m not sure how the streetcar lines on MLK/Grand will be installed, but I suspect they will NOT be in the curbside lane. I prefer that lane be preserved for parking and curb extensions at intersections. We’ll just have to wait for the drawings of detailed engineering. The streetcar lines themselves will send a subconscious signal to motorists to slow down, the same way streetcar stop extensions and curb extensions do. If MLK and Grand have to be reduced to 3 lanes, all the better.

  101. no streetcar is in the right most travel lane on MLK (and Grand), there are 4 travel lanes and i believe a parking lane on each side of the street. (left most travel lanes on Broadway and Weidler).

    dont underestimate how wide these roads are.

  102. I like the idea of the streetcar going across the Willamette but I’m not sold on running it on MLK/Grant. Why not have it go down Sandy and/or Hawthorne instead?

  103. Bob, thanks for clarifying.

    Guess I’m just curious why they’re running it down MLK/Grand as opposed to 7th/8th or 11th/12th.

  104. Guess I’m just curious why they’re running it down MLK/Grand

    About the same reason they’re running a streetcar in the first place: redevelopment potential. Also, I believe the zoning along MLK/Grand is more compatible with that redevelopment. Lastly, the central eastside is an Industrial Sanctuary, which also affects what can be done where.

  105. Electric consumption is identical.

    I’ve read that steel flanges on steel rails are a lot more efficient then rubber tires on asphalt. Steel is a lot smoother than road surfaces and causes less resistance.

  106. The Streetcar is on MLK/Grand because that’s where the neighborhood wanted it (where the existing mixed-use zoning is). The neighborhood did not want to rezone their industrial sanctuary (7th/8th) and did not want to risk gentrification in the residential areas adjacent to 11th/12th.

  107. That streetcar is going to slow to a crawl on MLK in rush hour traffic weekdays. At least once I’ve gotten off the #6 and walked south on MLK because it was faster…

  108. Bob (or others),

    has there been any discussion of running streetcar in its own dedicated lanes on MLK/Grand?

    It only makes sense, when there exist four or five traffic lanes, to dedicate one to transit. Buses, streetcars, taxis and emergency vehicles could all benefit.

Leave a Reply to dan w Cancel reply

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