Where’s Waldo? Traffic Forecast Inflation


There’s a great post on World Streets today about ways to inflate traffic forecasts (primarily to boost projections of toll revenue, but also potentially to justify projects).

Today’s question: how many of these can you find in the Columbia River Crossing Draft Environmental Impact Statement?


54 responses to “Where’s Waldo? Traffic Forecast Inflation”

  1. [Moderator: Off-topic comment removed. Terry, your perseverance and enthusiasm for working your own pet peeves into comments on any topic is amazing, but with all due respect just because you can find an angle to work in your grievances no matter what someone else posts, doesn’t mean you should.]

  2. I think the CRC should include an equestrian trail, in addition to the proposed 12 lanes of traffic, light rail/transit, walking path, and bike lanes.

    And we can tax sales of hay to pay for it. Otherwise, certain motorists may complain.

    Of course, there is the issue of you-know-what falling into the river… but having pooper-scoopers periodically crossing the bridge to keep the aforementioned trail clean somehow seems appropriate, considering the scope of the entire project…

  3. Chris Smith wrote: Today’s question: how many of these can you find in the Columbia River Crossing Draft Environmental Impact Statement?

    Tomorrow’s Question: How many of these can you find with any Streetcar, Light Rail, or other transit (yes, even a bus or BRT) project?

  4. Wow! This correlates so well with what’s going on regarding the selling of some of our major transit projects, too.

  5. Sugarcoating projections is part of the game ANY time someone wishing to do a venture goes looking for funding. This is true whether a public works project (trying to get Federal dollars or justify a revenue bond), a public/private partnership, a startup looking for venture capital, or even a business unit within a company looking to fund a new product and wanting dollars from the corporation.

    Suggesting that this is somehow unique to transit projects, or road projects, or anything else–is wrong.

    Experienced lenders and businesspeople generally know that the promised numbers (revenue, ridership, whatnot) are frequently optimistic in the extreme. OTOH, taxpayers occasionally get snowed by this, and sometimes business leaders who control funding may ignore obviously-bogus numbers, especially when they really want to do the project.

  6. It should be noted that both eastside and westside MAX lines exceeded their ridership projections, as well as the much-ridiculed OHSU Tram…

  7. I’m just seeing things through the perspective of one who expects to find service degraded in the switch from the 35 bus to the streetcar.

    In the Alternatives Analysis, Metro’s model (with help from TriMet) predicts that, if we do nothing, ridership on the 35 will almost quadruple from 2005 to 2025. This is much faster growth than TriMet predicts for their system as a whole, let alone for bus services.

    The thing is that, according to Lake Oswego’s periodic surveys, the total number and proportion of our residents commuting to Portland has been and continues declining as we age and find employment in places other than Portland. This is not atypical of suburban cities. Yes, West Linn is growing faster, but that growth is well away from Highway 43 (& the 35) and much more oriented to I-205.

    Then, based on that projected growth in bus ridership, Metro’s model predicts an additional 60% jump to almost 11,000 daily with the switch to streetcar. It just isn’t going to happen.

    Three of the four busiest stops on the 35 won’t even be served by the streetcar. One of these is the Oregon City Transit Center. Right now, OC riders use the 35 to get to PSU and SOWA. They won’t need to once Milwaukie MAX is completed. The MAX alternative will definitely be preferable for most of those going downtown because of the streetcar’s alignment. The point is that a significant number of current route 35 users will almost certainly not become regular streetcar riders.

    Metro and TriMet have put out a lot of questionable and even downright ludicrous numbers in support of the streetcar. I’ve discussed some of these here before and there’s no reason to belabor them. There really, really needs to be a thorough outside audit.

  8. If anything goes down the old Jefferson Branch line (the rail line to LO that is slated for the streetcar), it ought to (eventually) be MAX.

    Running the streetcar down there might be a useful interim solution; but given that MAX will one day run through the northern part of SOWA–extending the Green Line down to LO (and perhaps beyond) seems like a no-brainer, long-term.

  9. If MAX ever went to LO, it’s probably easier and a heck of a lot cheaper to just extend the Milwaukie line — or a branch of the line — across the railroad bridge from Milwaukie to Lake Oswego.

  10. The Alternatives Analysis did a preliminary guesstimate of about $170 million (plus lease/rental fees) to extend Milwaukie MAX across the existing bridge and about $212 million to have its own bridge. These included three (yes, three!) MAX stations on the east side south of Lake along the river’s edge, and a terminus at Albertson’s. The plan for Milwaukie MAX just has one station at Park.

    There really isn’t any need for more than one station south of Lake on the east side — the area can barely support the River Rd bus. On the other hand, it would make sense to extend MAX along the railroad to Tualatin and WES, including two intermediate stops in Lake Grove and Tualatin east of I-5. There is no good transportation reason to have MAX go to an Albertson’s terminus just a few feet from a foothills/A/B stop.

  11. The main (technical) issue with MAX going down the west side of the Willamette is that the line is single-tracked FTMP. Electrification, whether for streetcar or MAX, is a wash; I don’t imagine there would be many stations (if any) between Macadam and LO.

    There is, of course, the political issue of lots of rich folks nearby who would rather see the line abandoned–or at least not used for transit service.

    Running light rail across the existing SP bridge would, I imagine, impose numerous logistical problems–given that the bridge is single-tracked, can it even be shared with both freight and light rail?

    One advantage of a new bridge in that location is that it could provide crossing for other modes of transportation. A road crossing would probably face opposition, given that motorists would try and use it as a highway, even if otherwise configured (there isn’t any easy highway access on the east side)–but a useful crossing for pedestrians and bikes might be beneficial.

  12. The Alternative Analysis would provide stops at the Sellwood Bridge, Riverwood Rd, and Briarwood Rd.

    Shared use of the existing (mostly)P&W tracks & bridge would proscribe railroad use during light rail operational hours – roughly 5 AM to 1 AM. The basic extension to Lake Oswego would be about 2 1/3 miles which shouldn’t take MAX more than about six minutes to travel. So single track is a possibility, particularly if limited to small sections such as the bridge.

    I’m with you, Scotty, on the new bridge for the reasons you state.

    An interesting thing about the Alternatives Analysis is that it projected 6,000 new rides daily for the MAX extension, which is about 50% more than projected for the streetcar extension. It turns out that the total cost for the streetcar extension with a bike/pedestrian trail was projected at $216 million, which is only $3 million less than that for the MAX extension. For the extra $3 million we would get that bike/pedestrian Willamette crossing, all day frequent transit service between the east and west sides, and better service to the Portland transit mall.

    Without knowing, I think the MAX extension was dropped because the Jefferson Branch ROW was grossly overvalued thereby giving the decision makers involved the false impression that local capital costs would be much lower for the streetcar extension than can be justified by the pertinent Federal Regulations. There could also have been a carrot dangled in the form of a possible WES type project providing a Milwaukie-west side connection.

  13. We now serve about 13,000 daily riders.

    But, but, but… Is that an apples-to-apples comparison? The streetcar has been expanded multiple times since it first opened. And the original plans didn’t even have it going through PSU in the first phase.

  14. Granted that it was factored in years ago when projecting inititial numbers, but the impact of Fareless Square really needs to be mentioned when we estimate future streetcar extension ridership. The simple fact is that the average streetcar passenger pays about eight cents for a ride compared to about 82 cents for the average TriMet passenger.

    Otherwise it’s apples to pineapples.

    Sources:
    Portland Streetcar
    “Capital and Operations Funding”
    “Annual Ridership”
    TriMet
    “Facts about TriMet”

  15. Streetcar projections were based on Fareless, so Chris is accurate…ridership has far exceeded expectations. Eastside loop projections, I am sure, take into account the lack of Fareless.
    Actually, all MAX projects have come in on time and on budget, except Interstate MAX which was five months early and under budget! WES is another story, but it deserves more time to prove itself.

  16. [Moderator: Detailed complaint about moderator removal of earlier comment removed. There is a great difference in the content and tone of your initial comment and that of the other commenters in this thread. Your initial comment was virtually the same as the content you posted here hundreds of times before, and which has been allowed to stand in the past.]

  17. Counts can be inflated for every project, we just have to hope our local engineers are good enough not to do so falsely, and that our local reps are smart enough to catch it if it happens. The CRC at 10 lanes meets California, NY, Washington, Oregon, etc standards, as well as federal standards, for a project of this scope.

    I’d prefer to see the region spend money on a multi-modal BNSF corridor (road/train/HSR/MAX/ped/bike/moped/equestrian/ATV/wheelchair-friendly) path west of I-5, another near the airport, and remove the Hayden Island ramps to/from I-5.

    Let’s just make the CRC a long term plan, not something to fix our current problems though. If we can shift the LRT/train/ped/bike/wheelchair/equestrian/moped uses to the west, we can make the replacement I-5 bridge that much cheaper.

  18. Chris should post the farebox revenues from the trolley or Portland Streetcar Inc’s audit report.

    Lenny needs to get a copy of the Fed DOT report on the east side line commonly called the Pickrell Report. It shows how much below projections, over run and lateness.

    Lenny should read the Oregonian write-up on the west side over-runs and lateness due to the unforeseen tunnel problems.

    The cost data and projections have always been changed from the original projections. We didn’t have “overruns” on paper because Mark Hatfield , then Chair or ranking R of the Senate Appropriations Committee, got supplementary funding.

    What is more important is the cost per rider. According to Tri Met’s 1994 to FTA, west side trips from 185th to Hillsboro segment to the CBD was $175 per rider per trip. That’s about $33,000 per trip per year for commuters. We could have bought them condos downtown for a hell of a lot less.

    Mel

    East Side Light Rail not on Time & Budget
    http://portlandfacts.com/Transit/EastOnTimeOnBudget.htm

    WestSide MAX: Not On schedule and Not On Budget
    http://portlandfacts.com/Transit/WestOnTimeOnBudget.htm

  19. With Monday’s death of a woman by MAX the death count is now around 24 people Killed by MAX.
    What’s that another $24 million lost?

    Or nothing?

    I drove the full length of Interstate MAX last week. How anyone can drive that and call MAX and the impact on that neighborhood a success is living is beyond my imagination.
    The amount of infrastructure that obstructs the street and neighborhood isn’t even close to being worth the rare passing of a public transit vehicle on the tracks.

    It’s all very crazy.

    http://www.debunkingportland.com/Printables/RailPacket.pdf

  20. I drove the full length of Interstate MAX last week.

    I’ve walked, ridden buses and later trains, and driven the full length of Interstate MAX many times over the last 25 or so years.

    MAX and the associated streetscape and signalization upgrades is a dramatic improvement. It is now far, far easier to cross the street as a pedestrian (even if there are overall fewer places to do so), the street is quieter and safer for all modes.

    This raises a good point — much of the “cost” of MAX is in the installation of streetscape improvements which have nothing to do with rail in particular and ought to be done anyway.

    Transit supporters who view MAX as overpriced and think we should concentrate on improvements for buses have a point: Much of what goes in along a MAX line would directly benefit bus riders and pedestrians/cyclists as well, even without the rail component.

    Back when I did my “Dispatches from the Yellow Line” post, I intended to do a follow-up about the pedestrian environment. Much of that info is lost now, but in my interviews with locals as I walked the length of the alignment and took photos, I found the overwhelming response was that MAX had been a great thing for the corridor.

  21. How anyone can drive that and call MAX and the impact on that neighborhood a success is living is beyond my imagination.

    I’ve seen a number of newer projects that have been completed along that corridor, and in addition there are a number of projects that got stalled along that corridor due to negotiations regarding building heights and community impact. Once the credit markets open up there’s a number of projects that are finally ready to go.

    Maybe just doing increased bus service and giving the road a makeover would have worked well too, it seems that it would have been a great BRT candidate too. Either way it seems to have had an overall positive effect on the corridor though.

    Either way, it’s too early to call it’s real impact. It’s only been operating for 4 years and 364 days.

  22. Of course just doing increased bus service and giving the road a makeover would have worked better and save at least 100 million and cost less to operate.
    Any of the very little development improvement that have happened are not because the joy of MAX being present. The PDC poured millions into the failed attempt. And it still hasn’t worked out very well at all. A failure for sure, given the millions spent.

    Bob R in living a fantasy. The MAX infrastructure with all it’s concrete, chains, wires and barricades is an eyesore and obstruction.

    Not only that, one can drive the full length and only pass one light rail car in each direction. So it’s not a bustling transit corridor either.
    It’s all a contrived tale.

    That wasn’t the first time I’ve driven the full length. I’ve done it many times before and since MAX opened.
    It’s no better than the Eastside MAX, now 25 years and many millions more to make the call on it’s “real impact”.
    The Westside MAX and the line with Beaverton Round. Interstate MAX is following the identical pattern. No doubt more Urban Renewal schemes will follow.

    Bob likes the way it looks though. That’s a “dramatic improvement”?

    Having fewer places to cross the street and drive across the street is not better.
    It’s ridiculous to call the street quieter and safer for all modes.

    Bob twists and turns with distortions that the massive MAX streetscapes “have nothing to do with rail in particular and ought to be done anyway”
    That is such BS Bob.
    The fact is you don’t see the cost, no matter how high, as a detriment to light rail. Just as you don’t the massive infrastructure it always requires as a detriment. On Interstate there is now more useless infrastructure than there is useable walk,bike, drive surface.
    What’s better about it is only in your mind.

    Improved bus service would have required a small fraction of that infrastructure, period. And buses would have been able to serve more people from more neighborhoods well away from Interstate and used Interstate as an express thoroughfare.

    Your approach of walking along and finding people who say “MAX had been a great thing for the corridor” is the most biased, sloppy, unscientific, contrived nonsense possible. That’s completely out of any realistic context. Compared to what? It’s shiny new stuff so it’s good?
    Countless more people would be saying that had a fraction of the money been spent wiser. And more people well away from Interstate in many neighborhoods would be saying it.

    More transit service, more beautification, safe crossings and businesses exposed to shopper traffic would be better. But it’s screwed up now.
    You’ll NEVER see any thriving commerce and activity along that corridor now.

    What’s insane is the identical approach is being advanced for Milwaukie Light rail and even light rail on Hyw 99W from I-5 to Sherwood.
    More millions after bad are headed to Beaverton Round/Westside MAX, many millions more for Rockwood/Eastside MAX and millions in Urban Renewal along I-205 MAX are now being spent. All for what is still promoted as rail transit that spurs the development. It only spurs endless government boondoggle spending on a concept that has failed repeatedly.

  23. Not only that, one can drive the full length and only pass one light rail car in each direction.

    Given that the line is 5.8 miles long, and trains operate every 15 minutes (in one direction) from 5:30am to midnight, and given that MAX moves toward you at an average speed in the corridor of over 17mph (including all stops), you either completed your experiment in the dead of night, which proves nothing, or you made it through at an average vehicular speed of well over 25mph, including all traffic lights, which is pretty darned good. (Glad to know that you’ve shown MAX isn’t a hindrance to automobile traffic in the area.)

    (Or, you could be exaggerating, that’s a possibility too.)

    Your approach of walking along and finding people who say “MAX had been a great thing for the corridor” is the most biased, sloppy, unscientific, contrived nonsense possible.

    It sure beats driving along the corridor in a car and talking to nobody and then making absolutist (and demonstrably incorrect) pronouncements on a blog.

    (FYI, If you had directed your remarks in such a manner at any other participant on this blog, your comment would have been removed. Try to address people here more politely from now on. Thanks.)

  24. What’s insane is the identical approach is being advanced for Milwaukie Light rail

    This reminds me of a blog conversation a couple of years ago over at BlueOregon, where one commenter was absolutely livid about Milwuakie Light Rail, but refused repeated invitations for a personal sit-down with a Milwaukie city councilperson to discuss it. Lots of angry pronouncements, little direct involvement.

  25. Bob,

    That “personal sit-down” you are trying to cast as what should be the preferable choice of someone less “angry” would be a complete waste of time. Much like testifying at a Metro hearing.
    Having been involved in many efforts to discuss, testify, and advocate some influence at many levels I know such a sit down would be ridiculously ineffective.
    The problem is you and yours are too entrenched, unwavering and advocating of the status quo agenda, rejecting out of hand any and all opposing input. And quite often deliberately avoiding substantive points in order to posture.
    Just as that Milwaukie city council person did in that lengthy blog conversation you mentioned.
    If She had any intention of honest discussion, or an open mind, she would have answered those inquires she avoided on the blog.

    I don’t know why you think such a sit-down would be productive. There’s nothing to suggest that would be the case.
    IMO you’re suggesting that is no different than what you criticize as my less than polite manner.
    This perpetual posturing by your side of this debate is more often than not offensive in a variety of ways.
    Your last post prime example.

    “one commenter was absolutely livid, refused repeated invitations, to discuss it. Lots of angry pronouncements, little direct involvement”

    Pleasant that is not.

    As for being livid, there is much reason to be disturbed by planning outcomes around here.
    The repeated invitations are an excuse for not answering directly and openly.
    The discussions in person follow the same as the blog.
    It’s not simply angry pronouncements to point these things out, and

    You don’t know squat about who has been involved in what.

    Perhaps you need to moderate yourself.

  26. You don’t know squat about who has been involved in what.

    Highlighted for posterity. That gave me a good chuckle this morning.

  27. Not only that, one can drive the full length and only pass one light rail car in each direction. So it’s not a bustling transit corridor either. It’s all a contrived tale.

    Just for you, “John E.”, I drove the full length of the corridor 4 times today, twice in each direction, and your assertion did not prove true.

  28. Bob R. deserves a medal for writing: This raises a good point — much of the “cost” of MAX is in the installation of streetscape improvements which have nothing to do with rail in particular and ought to be done anyway.

    Transit supporters who view MAX as overpriced and think we should concentrate on improvements for buses have a point: Much of what goes in along a MAX line would directly benefit bus riders and pedestrians/cyclists as well, even without the rail component.

    Proof that MAX gets gold-plated treatment, but bus service is forced to scrape for pennies.

    TriMet claims (even in a letter to me signed by Fred Hansen) that TriMet isn’t responsible for pedestrian safety and access to “transit stops” (in reality he means “bus stops”), but TriMet spends hundreds of thousands of dollars – PER MAX Station – strictly on pedestrian improvements. The same pattern followed WES and Streetcar (although to a lesser extent).

    There is absolutely no reason TriMet cannot spend an equal amount of money per bus stop that is spent on a Streetcar stop.

    There is no reason that the level of on-board amenities between a bus and a light rail/streetcar/commuter rail vehicle should be any different.

    That there is a “dislike” towards buses is no less a form of social engineering by Metro, TriMet and the City of Portland (which in their Streetcar planning documents even states it multiple times!) not unlike the arguments that we live in auto-dominated societies where we are forced to drive everywhere.

    We CAN have good buses, but Metro and TriMet refuse to give us good buses. They buy the cheapest things they can buy, and refuse to spend money on capacity or access improvements (especially given that TriMet is spending virtually nothing from the stimulus package on bus improvements – in fact TriMet is spending more on bikes, despite having no legal responsibility over bicycling!)…and then I have to listen to a load of crap from so-called “transit advocates” about how people don’t like buses.

    I wonder how successful our streetcar/light rail system would be if the vehicles were held together by the bungee cords and rubberbands that held together the dashboard of the two buses I rode yesterday and today. (I only wish I could say I was exaggerating…)

  29. Bob R. deserves a medal for writing

    Well, thank you, but not really.

    I have always maintained that we need better bus service and (independent of transit of any kind) better pedestrian, bike and streetscape amenities.

    Where you and I differ, apparently, is on the issue of whether or not TriMet has a specific vendetta against buses, rather than (at worst) mere bureaucratic lethargy or (at best) certain structural budgetary difficulties.

  30. I wonder how successful our streetcar/light rail system would be if the vehicles were held together by the bungee cords and rubberbands

    In order to expand your knowledge, you might ask some streetcar operators about the condition of the cab seats on the current streetcars.

  31. Oh Bob.

    “Just for you, “John E.”, I drove the full length of the corridor 4 times today, twice in each direction, and your assertion did not prove true.”

    You never responded to the massive infrastructure I mentioned. And you apparenlty don’t even see the poles, wires, all the concrete structures, curbing, barricades that cause a tremendous obstruction to movement of all modes.

    Instead you see better and easier movement?

    Frankly I think you’re deliberately embellishing as you know yourself that drive is not impressive at all. You can envison it being so but not observe it to be.

    And 5, 10, 20 years fromn now we’ll be having the same conversation and Interstate will be like Eastside MAX and Rockwood.

  32. Frankly I think you’re deliberately embellishing as you know yourself that drive is not impressive at all. You can envison it being so but not observe it to be.

    A couple of video clips for John:

    Interstate MAX Corridor Drives – Run 1 – Northbound

    Start Time: Approx. 2:50pm
    Start Point: Rose Quarter Station (Intersection of N. Interstate Ave. and N.E. Multnomah)
    End Point: Expo Center Station (Adjacent Park & Ride Lot)
    Distance: 5.8 miles
    Drive Time: 20 minutes, 28 seconds
    Average Vehicle Speed: 17mph (Including all stops)

    Northbound MAX Trains Encountered: 1
    Southbound MAX Trains Encountered: 3

    An interesting observation about travel times — in the peak direction, MAX tends to move a bit faster than automobile traffic, and in the off-peak direction, automobile traffic moves faster than MAX, but not so much so that it would be likely to encounter more than one train in the same direction.

    Top automobile speeds varied throughout the runs — I performed these runs travelling with the flow of traffic. At some points in the off-peak runs, automobile traffic speeds exceeded 15mph over the posted speed limit (a freight truck in one specific case).

    Stops of more than a few seconds (such as at traffic lights) have been edited from the videos, but a timer has been added and the raw footage is available (for a reasonable duplication, shipping, and handling fee) to anyone who thinks I’m embellishing what the camera recorded.

    Instead you see better and easier movement?

    Certainly for transit users, bikes and peds, yes. You can see multiple pedestrians utilizing marked crossings in the video, and bicycles utilizing the bike lanes and waiting at signalized, marked crossings. In all 4 runs, I did not observe a single pedestrian who wasn’t properly afforded the ROW by motorists, which is quite remarkable. As for autos, there was some congestion in the middle of the corridor, but the outer ends of the corridor were mostly free flowing in all runs.

    And you apparenlty don’t even see the poles, wires, all the concrete structures, curbing, barricades that cause a tremendous obstruction to movement of all modes.

    As can be seen in the video, the vast majority of the MAX poles are also supporting the street lighting system. Those poles would be needed somewhere along the street with or without MAX. There are also much older utility poles and wires along the street side — in my opinion those should have been undergrounded (as they should be on all major urban corridors), but I suppose if that were done people would be complaining that light rail was even more expensive.

    The catenary wires (in my subjective opinion) are arranged in an orderly, elegant fashion, unlike the random and haphazard placement of wires and transformers on the older utility poles.

    Not sure what you mean by “curbing” — are you opposed to curbs on arterial streets? Or is this about curb extensions / bulb-outs? (Which are a streetscape feature and not actually necessary for light rail.)

    As for the concrete trackway, this was a request of local businesses and residents. The original plan was for a gravel trackbed, which is better-suited for drainage and a lower-cost item. Personally, I’d like to see grass medians as used in some other systems in this country and around the world.

    In addition to the infrastructure you list, I also see more street trees, and median planting strips.

    As for “barricades” and the pedestrian crossings mentioned earlier, here are some maps for you:

    Interstate Ave. Pedestrian Crossings

    From a list I compiled a couple of years ago:

    Marked Crossings Before MAX

    • Fremont St. South
    • Fremont St. North
    • Shaver St. South
    • Shaver St. North
    • Going St. South
    • Going St. North
    • Alberta St. South
    • Alberta St. North
    • Killingsworth St. South
    • Killingsworth St. North
    • Ainsworth St. South
    • Ainsworth St. North
    • Portland Blvd. South
    • Portland Blvd. North
    • Buffalo St. South
    • Buffalo St. North
    • Lombard St. South
    • Lombard St. North
    • Argyle St. North Only

    Total “Before” Crossings: 19

    Marked Crossings After MAX:

    • Fremont St. South
    • Fremont St. North
    • Overlook Blvd. South
    • Overlook Blvd. North
    • Shaver St. South
    • Shaver St. North
    • Mason St. North
    • Skidmore St. South
    • Skidmore St. North
    • Prescott St. North
    • Going St. South
    • Going St. North
    • Wygant St.
    • Alberta St. South
    • Alberta St. North
    • Sumner St. North
    • Willamette Blvd. North
    • Killingsworth St. South
    • Killingsworth St. North
    • Jarrett St. South
    • Ainsworth St. South
    • Ainsworth St. North
    • Colfax St. North
    • Portland Blvd. South
    • Portland Blvd. North
    • Dekum St. North
    • Bryant St. South
    • Buffalo St. South
    • Buffalo St. North
    • Lombard St. South
    • Lombard St. North
    • Terry St. North
    • Winchell St. North
    • Interstate Pl. West
    • Fenwick Ave. East
    • Fenwick Ave. West
    • Denver Ave. East
    • Argyle St. South
    • Argyle St. North

    Total “After” Crossings: 39
    (That’s more than double!)

    Note that the above list excludes MAX station access crossings, which are provided at several stations in addition to the main crossings.

    And 5, 10, 20 years fromn now we’ll be having the same conversation […]

    I don’t doubt it. We’re still having the same conversation we had about Interstate MAX two years ago.

  33. Just for kicks, I’ve also created a Google map of Interstate 5 pedestrian crossings along the same corridor as the Interstate Ave. comparisons, above. Here are all of the crossing opportunities:

    • Failing St. Pedestrian Bridge
    • Skidmore St. South
    • Skidmore St. North
    • Alberta St. South
    • Alberta St. North
    • Killingsworth St. South
    • Killingsworth St. North
    • Ainsworth St. South
    • Ainsworth St. North
    • Portland Blvd. South
    • Portland Blvd. North
    • Saratoga / Bryant Pedestrian Bridge
    • Lombard St. South
    • Lombard St. North

    Total crossing opportunities: 14 — Now that’s what I call a barrier that divides neighborhoods!

    It gets worse for I-5 if you just look at street names instead of crosswalks/sidewalks:

    • Interstate Ave. Crossing Streets before MAX: 10
    • Interstate Ave. Crossing Streets after MAX: 26
    • I-5 Crossing Streets: 8

    Thanks to the design of MAX, there are now more than 2.5 times as many streets where pedestrians may cross in a marked, protected area than before, and more than 3 times as many as exist along I-5. (At least the I-5 crossings are completely grade-separated, although pedestrians must deal with traffic entering and emerging from ramps in many cases.)

  34. Marked Crossings Before MAX

    I think the issue might be that, before MAX, every street corner was a legal crosswalk, even if not marked. But overall, it sounds like, while the number of total legal crossing places may have gone down, they are (probably) all now formalized and have either signals or signs.

    But a real issue with Interstate MAX is that it the speed is limited due to the multiple street jogs. If it was put along I-5, I believe it could avoid those jogs and travel at 55 MPH, as well as be more reliable due to less grade crossings and more open track.

  35. Nice try Bob but of course the issue is there’s less crossings.

    All you’re doing is displaying the “assigned” crossings remaining to be used.
    The rest are blocked comletely.

    Are you honestly trying to pitch that only becasue of MAX and with MAX could more marked crossing be possible?
    Of course you are. And you’ve went to such lengths as to pitch that there are now more crossings than before.

    There really is no end to your manipulation is there.
    Sorry but that’s exactly what you are doing.
    And in doing so are covering up the failure of this massive collection of infrastrcucture to provide a measure of benefit worth it’s enormous funding and building.

    All you are doing is spinning and characterizing the mess in a far better rose color than it deserves.
    Light Rail never should have been placed there period. You may have this never eroding enamor over rail but it’s mess there and will be just like Rockwood for decades.
    The only significant development that will ever occur along Interstae now will be public Urban Renewal funded mixed use schemes that you’ll end up spinning as private development spurred by MAX.

  36. Bob,
    Why don’t you and few others from PT come to my WES presentation on Wednesday at the Exec Club?

    Executive Club Meeting
    6:00 pm • Wed, May 6th • Airport Shilo
    Mel Zucker, will be on hand to present all you need to know, and everything the people who created it, don’t want you to know … including individual counts of ridership and the amounts spent for each rider of WES, the new commuter rail system from Beaverton to Wilsonville.

    Mel

  37. Why don’t you and few others from PT come to my WES presentation on Wednesday at the Exec Club?

    I’m not sure if I can make it, but maybe your friends John E., Steve S., Janice, and Alice can join you.

  38. Nice try Bob but of course the issue is there’s less crossings.

    If you think drivers in the area will stop for pedestrians at an unmarked but prominent and legal crossing, watch this video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F7qrDNmIj4

    That was shot two years ago. 47 cars pass without a single one stopping for a pedestrian (the crossing was only possible because traffic got backed up for a red light over a block away).

    At MAX, at the same time of day in the same area, the 2nd car stops to allow the crossing.

    There is absolutely a substantive difference.

    And the MAX crossings are better for pedestrians than other marked crossings of, say, a 4-lane arterial: The pedestrian needs only cross one lane before reaching a refuge, rather than 2 or 4, and the refuge, with railings and curbs, is more substantial than most.

    But keep up your pseudonymous accusations of “spin” and “manipulation”… it’s quite entertaining.

  39. Mel Zucker?

    Isn’t he the guy who tried to get passenger information and trimet attempted to block him using the homeland security defense?

    W-O-W, I wouldn’t mind seeing that guy speak!

  40. Bob,

    Not sure about those others by I”ll be there for Mel’s presentation.
    Having heard some tidbits behnd the scenes it will include the full monty of dyfunction WES is all about.
    And it’s not too early to tell if the line is a success.
    Layers of TriMet special speak won’t change a thing.

    As for your video comparing two crosssings?

    Come on. Do you honestly think that comparing a totaly unmarked crossing to a super marked and barricaded MAX station crossing is valid?

    I mean duh. The extensive infrastrcuture at a MAX station enables easier and safer crossing.

    So does a police escort. Or a pedestrian bridge.

    You work says nothing about the extensive obstruction the rest of massive MAX infrastructure
    established. Or the detrimental effect it has and will have on development and any ability to spur a wider and bustling community along Interstate.

    You see Rail Transit on Interstate through rose colored glasses and I see an eyesore that will stagnate the street for decades. Just like Eastside MAX, Burnside and Rockwood.

    You can’t even imagine, or deliberately avoid, the idea of opening a business on Interstate and the detriment to customer traffic all that junk in the street represents.
    It’s just like the old transit mall downtown which was the worst place for business downtown for decades.
    We’ll soon get another chapter in that story.

    Anyway, come out and enjoy Mel’s WES presentation.
    Bring an open or closed mind.

  41. you honestly think that comparing a totaly unmarked crossing to a super marked and barricaded MAX station crossing is valid?

    It was you who demanded such a comparison. One of your original assertions was that MAX infrastructure represented a barrier to all modes. I’ve shown how it actually facilitates easier crossing for pedestrians.

    Remember, you said quite clearly:

    the poles, wires, all the concrete structures, curbing, barricades that cause a tremendous obstruction to movement of all modes. Instead you see better and easier movement?

    But now, you state that it is obvious that this makes pedestrian crossings easier and safer:

    I mean duh. The extensive infrastrcuture at a MAX station enables easier and safer crossing.

    Thanks for coming around on that one. But I’m not just counting stations… in fact, just the opposite. As I stated in my list of crossings, it doesn’t list the additional crossings for station access — it lists all of the places where you may completely cross the street, station or non-station.

    Sorry Janice (I mean Steve), but every time I’ve gone out and verified something you or Mel has said, with photos and video, it has proven to be incorrect, yet you never acknowledge it and bring up the same stuff time and time again.

    You still haven’t even walked back your “no more than one train in each direction” claim, and you responded to my links yesterday without actually watching the complete corridor drive video. (YouTube keeps lovely statistics.)

    Anyway, come out and enjoy Mel’s WES presentation.

    Is there a link to where this is taking place? It wasn’t on the event calendar I found online for that organization.

    Mel, would you mind if this event were recorded for posting online?

  42. Clearly there’s people who have not actually walked along interstate ave. There’s comfortable crossings like this along the route which aid to better pedestrian movement:

    Here

    It is much safer than it was.

    Furthermore, Interstate Ave. is an economically depressed area. There’s limited development in these neighborhoods because of the socio-economic background. No light rail line is going to fix that completely. Hopefully in time, like the New Seasons on interstate, new development will emerge that is consistently urban – and not the auto-dependent only land-uses which plague much of the area.

  43. Yes, the Interstate Ave. pedestrian crossings could have been improved without a light rail project and are really a side effect of it, but would they? That is the real question and my guess is no.

  44. Mel, would you mind if this event were recorded for posting online?

    Please do that someone!

    It would be nice if more people besides me and Jason took an interest in archiving this stuff!

    Media coverage is no good cause they only use sound bites and then the rest of the footage is not available to the public.

  45. Bob,

    Karlock videos all of the Exec meeting presentations.

    Mels post above had the info.

    May 2, 2009 10:09 PM
    Mel Says:
    Executive Club Meeting
    6:00 pm • Wed, May 6th • Airport Shilo

    Bob, If you were going to compare crossing safety it would have been fair to use a signaled crosswalk to the MAX stop you used. Or at least a marked crosswalk.
    You deliberately used an unmarked one.
    Did you also stand there looking as though you were sightseeing instead of wanting to cross?

    So that video was worthless and proved nothing.

    Worse yet is you are playing straw man, again.
    I never said there were not some improved crossings associated with the MAX infrastructure. Of course there are crossings. They had to be inculded.
    But that doesn’t justify the enormous expense or address the greater obstruction massive infrastructure is.

    I never demanded the the comparison you made.

    Really what is your problem?
    Yes I said the MAX infrastructure represents a barrier to all modes. But I was obvioulsy talking about everywhere there’s not a new crossing.

    Is there some sort of agenda that causes you to extend my assertion to what it wasn’t?

    Of course the ultra facilities of MAX crossings facilitate easier crossing for pedestrians.
    But only at those crossings while everywhere else is obstructed by the extensive curbing, barricades, tracks, chains etc.
    And with the rest of the mess of wires, poles, signals etc that all have to maintained it’s a costly, obstructing eyesore.

    Yeah duh. The extensive infrastrcuture at a MAX station enables easier and safer crossing.

    So what? It’s everywhere else that it obstructs.

    Had the costly MAX not been extended many more poeple could have been provided transit service from their neighborhoods and many more crossings could have been improved for pedestrians.

    All you did is go out and cherry pick the costly improved crossings while ignoring the many that are now entirely blocked.
    Again, your strawman games as I never said the MAX infrastructure didn’t have any crossings.
    That would have bee ludicrous.

    So you verified only your strawman.

    When I said the “no more than one train in each direction” I was talking about the primary long section of Interstate without any of the Delta Park/Expo or Rose Quarter sections.
    But my point you ignored was that it’s not a bustling transit corridor.

    I could easily go take a drive and video all the detriment. Using your selective approach I could make a horror picture out of it.
    So What?

    MY point was that Interstate was a wide thoroughfare in need of maintenance and a makeover. It is now a high mantenence ,cluttered mess from high cost, infrastructure, worsened trafffic congestion, detriment to business and other losses, including less bus service, MAX always brings.

    As for people walking along interstate ave. and using comfortable crossings?
    Of course there’s some. But the lack of traffic function, lack of parking, lack of businesses and commmmerce means fewer people walking than could be. And it will stay as it is.

    Go film the pedestrian traffic. There wasn’t much if it either. So big deal.
    Having a few crossings much safer than they were is not a measurement of merit.

    Interstate Ave. will remain an economically depressed area, even as the adajacent areas gentify and improves, becasue it’s a mess of excessive infrastrcuture that’s not condusive to
    commerce and neighborhood vitality.
    That story is the same all over the region.

    There’s limited development in these corridors because the light rail fantasy is juct that.

    No light rail line is going to fix anything.
    Not in time either. The New Seasons on interstate gets it’s customers by cars.
    Any new development will have to have huge public subsidies and the TOD effort will fail as it has in places such as the Beaverton Round, Cascade Station, Gateway, Gresham etc. All of which are either desolate or car oriented chaos.

    Interstate will resemble East Burnside for decades. With Rockwood type Urbanm Renewal schemes attemting to spur what Light Rail never will.

    Not matter how many videos Bob makes or the enamor for anti-auto-dependent land-uses.
    The biggest plague Interstate has is the MAX death sentence.
    This is all about MAX track record and it’s not good. Repeating the same promised over another 25 years won’t change it.

    Yes, the Interstate Ave. pedestrian crossings could have been improved without a light rail project. It could have been an emerging, bustling avenue friendly to vehicles, buses, pedestrians and commerce all. Especially with it’s link to the Rose Quarter/city center.
    MAX and the illusion of Smart Growth screwed that all up. It will remain a mess of infrastructure serving relatively few pedestrains, few vehicles, few businesses and no vitality.

    al m,
    Jim Karlock has a vast video collection which he shares with most anyone.

  46. Bob, If you were going to compare crossing safety it would have been fair to use a signaled crosswalk to the MAX stop you used.

    Why? The MAX crosswalk I used was NOT signalized. The whole point is that with only one lane to cross before the refuge, and with excellent markings and visibility, motorists do the correct thing and stop for pedestrians.

    Or at least a marked crosswalk.

    Before the MAX project, there was a shortage of marked or signalized crosswalks.

    As I said in my original post, a lot of these kinds of things _should_ be done regardless of MAX. But people who complain about the “high cost of MAX” often overlook the streetscape improvements which come along with MAX and which are considered part of the light rail tab, and shouldn’t be. That’s my point.

    You deliberately used an unmarked one.

    Yes, and I said so, and I said why. No hidden agenda.

    Did you also stand there looking as though you were sightseeing instead of wanting to cross?

    Did you read the description that went along with the video? Hmmm? Let’s see what it says:

    The video is off-angle and shaky because I let my digital camera hang low on my neck so that motorists wouldn’t pass me by simply because they thought I was taking a picture.

    Yes I said the MAX infrastructure represents a barrier to all modes.

    Yes, you did.

    But I was obvioulsy talking about everywhere there’s not a new crossing.

    No, not obviously.

    But only at those crossings while everywhere else is obstructed by the extensive curbing, barricades, tracks, chains etc.

    I asked you before what you meant by “curbing” but you haven’t clarified.

    And with the rest of the mess of wires, poles, signals etc that all have to maintained it’s a costly, obstructing eyesore.

    That’s your subjective view. Thank you for sharing it.

    As previously indicated, most of the poles would have to be there somewhere with or without MAX, unless you are opposed to street lighting as well.

    Yeah duh. The extensive infrastrcuture at a MAX station enables easier and safer crossing.

    Perhaps you didn’t see the listing of crossings and the map I provided you, but there are many more crossings along MAX than just the stations. In fact, as I’m now telling you for a third time, my list and map EXCLUDES station-access crossings, as opposed to complete crossings.

    So what?

    So? The whole point is that I’ll gladly trade fewer overall crossings for reasonably-spaced, well-marked, well-protected crossings. I’ll also trade being able to cross an arterial at every possible side street for a fewer, reasonably spaced, signalized crossings, which is what happened along Interstate Ave.

    It’s everywhere else that it obstructs.

    Nope.

    All you did is go out and cherry pick the costly improved crossings while ignoring the many that are now entirely blocked.

    Ignoring? I drew a map. I posted a list.

    When I said the “no more than one train in each direction” I was talking about the primary long section of Interstate without any of the Delta Park/Expo or Rose Quarter sections.

    No, what you said was quite specific:

    ?I drove the full length of Interstate MAX last week. How anyone can drive that and call MAX and the impact on that neighborhood a success is living is beyond my imagination.

    [Emphasis added.]

    If by “full length” you really meant “NOT the full length”, then you probably should have avoided using the word “full” altogether.

    full?/f?l/
    –adjective
    * complete; entire; maximum
    * of the maximum size, amount, extent, volume, etc.

    But my point you ignored was that it’s not a bustling transit corridor.

    That’s a subjective statement. It’s way more transit/ped oriented than it was before, and ridership is more than double in the corridor (even though the Yellow Line doesn’t go to Hayden Island, which it should have done).

    Since we’re being subjective, I think the whole street is just much more pleasant, while simultaneously being more active. I’ve walked the full length of it several times, including prior to MAX.

    I could easily go take a drive and video all the detriment. Using your selective approach I could make a horror picture out of it.

    What “selective approach”? My corridor drive videos showed everything there was to see, nothing hidden, I just let the camera roll.

    including less bus service, MAX always brings.

    There was no net decrease of bus revenue service hours within the area when MAX opened. That was a condition demanded by the neighborhoods.

    Go film the pedestrian traffic. There wasn’t much if it either. So big deal.

    My video includes the pedestrian traffic.

    Having a few crossings much safer than they were is not a measurement of merit.

    Sorry you feel that way.

    The New Seasons on interstate gets it’s customers by cars.

    And by bike, and by sidewalk, and from transit. Look how small their parking lot is in relationship to the size of the store, and look how many customers come and go and don’t use a car.

    Perhaps I should record a few hours of video out at Gateway Fred Meyer, where you can see a steady stream of customers entering/leaving the store from the walkway which leads to the transit center. (And not just the Park & Ride people, either.)

  47. [Moderator: Complaint about moderator actions and relevance of topic removed. Sufficient explanation has already been given.]

  48. Jason McHuff wrote: Yes, the Interstate Ave. pedestrian crossings could have been improved without a light rail project and are really a side effect of it, but would they? That is the real question and my guess is no.

    Before MAX, Interstate Avenue was an ODOT maintained state highway. ODOT had ZERO interest in maintaining this route – after all, it was already functionally demoted to a local collector street and had been for 40 years after I-5 was built.

    The City of Portland didn’t really want to maintain it…ODOT couldn’t abandon the road without someone taking the street over…so it wasn’t necessarily an issue of “would the road be changed” – it was simply a total lack of interest on the City’s part.

    When Metro/TriMet decided to build “north/north” light rail after the failure of South|North…oh boy, now the City was interested. The wheels got turning, ODOT happily signed over Interstate Avenue to PDOT and look what happened.

    Could Interstate Avenue have been made pedestrian friendly? Sure…there are dozens of streets in Portland that have been improved. Tacoma, M.L.K. (the old Highway 99E, another former state highway), even parts of Powell saw some targeted pedestrian improvements (and Powell is still a state highway).

    The city won’t jump unless one of its pet projects (in this case, light rail) can be involved. For those areas that do not want light rail or streetcar, the city actively ignores local residents and siphons improvement money away from the area – just as we are seeing in Southwest Portland with the lack of any city sponsored transit plan, because of local opposition to the streetcar but no because of opposition to transit…just what the city wants.

    (Fortunately for me, ODOT still maintains Barbur Boulevard quite nicely, and ODOT is spending a lot of money on sidewalk improvements south of the Portland city line.)

  49. John E.,

    Westside MAX seems to be doing just fine. Beaverton Round *is* a serious problem, but one that has nothing to do with MAX. Beaverton Round is a failure because of the total lack of “walkability” to local services. Any destination worth traveling to nearby requires navigating a completely car-centric architecture, with the accompanying noise and exhaust problems. That area is unpleasant to walk in or bike around, and completely defeats the purpose of transit-centric development.

    I agree that the Milwaukie corridor isn’t going to be helped by MAX in general – and you won’t see any development around the Park station – just a large Park & Ride lot. There are no services within walking distance of Park either, and Fred Meyer is up the hill and more than a mile away.

    Side note: Westside MAX is successful in large part because the stations are well-separated, allowing MAX to move quickly, and because it follows a rail alignment and doesn’t disrupt pedestrian movement any more than the previous rail alignmnet did. Eastside MAX was far more damaging (as is Interstate MAX) due to the severe limiting of legal and safe pedestrian movement. The Green line should also prove wildly successful. (note I did not say cost-effective)

Leave a Reply to Matt Picio Cancel reply

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