|
Yesterday the Metro Council approved a plan that ranks 16 potential High Capacity Transit corridors.
Included in the ‘near term’ category are corridors on Barbur, Powell and paralleling Highway 217.
|
|
Yesterday the Metro Council approved a plan that ranks 16 potential High Capacity Transit corridors.
Included in the ‘near term’ category are corridors on Barbur, Powell and paralleling Highway 217.
52 responses to “Metro Council Approves 30-year Vision for High Capacity Transit”
‘near term’ is roughly how long? 5, 10, 20 years?
why does 28 and 29 terminate at washington square instead of beaverton?
suprised that oregon city isnt in the first tier
how does the 217 HCT line factor in with WES in the same corridor?
how did the downtown subway score in the ranking?
Something that annoys me quite a bit is the number of corridors where no kind of transit service is available today. This is the case for the three “Regional Vision Corridors” (Sherwood/Tualatin, Clackamas/Damascus, and Gresham/Damascus), as well as Tualatin/Oregon City.
From page 3: 5 Corridor 55 was selected as part of Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council (RTC) HCT System Plan and was not ranked based on the evaluation criteria.
I have to say, that’s a bit unexpected. (It refers to the I-205 corridor from Gateway to Salmon Creek.) I did notice it doesn’t list LRT specifically, so I assume it’s planned to be BRT due to the comments made from some ODOT and WADOT employees about the bridge not being designed to take the additional weight of LRT over it.
As for the WES paralleling alignment, it does make sense as a higher-service corridor, provided that the WES has less stops and a significantly higher speed. In addition I’d expect to see the WES extended further south before MAX is built next to it. We still have the Milwaukie line to build, and Barbur or Powell I think would be a higher priority than this route.
Once Milwaukie MAX is underway, Barbur is the next obvious candidate for HCT, and it my view MAX is the obvious choice with a tunnel to serve OHSU. We may learn from WES that 30 minute service in the peaks only does not cut it, and a more frequent MAX like service will be needed.
Powell Blvd is interesting…plenty of ROW beyond 50th; its all parking lots on land that was once destined to hold the Mt Hood Freeway.
The trick will be getting ROW between there andSE 17th. And you must have exclusive ROW for High Capacity Transit whether its MAX or BRT.
I am pushing for elevated out to 92nd. Powell Blvd rises to go South of Kelly Butte at that point (but you would have to redo the I-205 overpass of Powell. I think swinging the above-tramway to the South to be closer to the Green Line stop for Powell makes sense. Push a MAX only tunnel under I-205 might be less expensive. Bring MAX down to earth just before 92nd.
Elevated from 17th out to I-205 is my dream. It will be expensive to buy the right of way, that is for sure.
Ray
God they blew it!
They shoulda ranked at least 32!
Hey good news, more of the same?
“Traffic congestion is bad and getting worse.
It is a nightmare for commuters and it is choking freight mobility.
There is no more clear illustration of our inability to meet growth needs than our failure to address our transportation needs.
Within the transportation arena we are facing utter chaos.”
From Metro Executive, Mike Burton’s State of the Region Speech, 2000
John E:
You have some notion that congestion can be conquered. How well has Houston done at getting rid of congestion with some of the most highway miles per capita? Oh, I forgot, they have near the worst congestion in the US.
The trick will be getting ROW between there andSE 17th. And you must have exclusive ROW for High Capacity Transit whether its MAX or BRT.
seems like this will be the same for barbur and mcloughlin… you either drastically reduce the lanes on these major streets or go grade seperated.
I didn’t realize downtown Vancouver was now part of METRO. Oh, yeah, this is true, they’re planning to get Washingtonians to pay up for crossing a new bridge–not just until it is paid for, but “in perpetuity”—-because, obviously, we need another revenue stream for all of our projects.
BTW, SW Washington Regional Transportation Commission had proposed almost ten years ago some new high capacity corridors, including Columbia River crossing. One would link up with the corridor in Troutdale area—the 13D-13. Another was to the Terminal 6 -Hayden Island area. A third one was between 1-205 and the Lady Island crossing area- I think we could forget that one.
Just two bridges and were set—forget the CRC I-5 project. The CRC and the resultant I-5/I-405 loop replacement would probably cost together $20 billion. We certainly could meet a LOT more other pressing needs with that money–and save metro regional travelers a lot of frustration.
Bridge/road costs don’t magically go away once the capital costs are paid for. Tolls should be in “perpetuity” knowing this fact.
Shouldn’t they?
That’s it ws?
That’s all it takes to ignore the march deeper into chaos?
Just pretend the only other option is a Houston approach?
That worn out bromide is nothing but an excuse to continue with more of the same which Burton acknowledged.
Swell.
And rail on 99W and Tualatin-Sherwood road?
Pure insanity.
Just pretend the only other option is a Houston approach? That worn out bromide is nothing but an excuse […]
I agree that it’s a worn-out bromide, because if you look at the archives around here you’ll see that Houston is brought up as a shining example time and time again by critics of Metro and Portland (city of) policies, so I think criticism by commenters of a Houston-style approach is more than fair.
John E:
What options would you propose? Keep in mind, rapid highway expansion would be the “Houston” way.
I don’t disagree that some (or even many) light rail lines may not be feasible. I actually haven’t taken a look closely at the map in detail to say I agree with it or disagree with it as a whole.
And yes, I mentioned Houston because it’s supposedly the “solution” for urban development and urban mobility in the US – when in fact they have terrible traffic congestion and poor air quality.
Oh BS, Bob.
If you look at the archives everywhere you’ll see that Houston is brought up by you and yours time and time again as the ginned up portrayal of critics as suggesting the extreme polar opposite of our chaos. Houston is a boogeyman, like sprawl, you use to collapse discussion on real problems. In truth there’s a wide array of alternatives to the Portland way. The “fair” discussion would be on Portland chaos without diverting into Houston straw man tactics.
ws,
If you honestly have never heard of the many other options besides Portland or the “rapid highway expansion” of the Houston boogeyman there’s NO sense attempting to provide them now. If you have any genuine interest there’s the Internet and at least a 100 metropolitan areas with different approaches you pretend to be unaware of.
An honest first step would be to echo Burton’s recogniition 9 years ago that we are facing utter chaos.
And it’s hardly because we haven’t rapidly built enough rail transit which many around here seem to think.
Forget “rapid highway expansion”. Our chaos way is none. Our chaos making includes the deliberate avoidance of any accommodating of growing traffic volumes under the convenient notion that it will only induce more.
There have been a few improvements in our region, like other places in the country, where intersection, road, lane and other changes improve flow of traffic without a boogeyman following. Unfortunately our public official’s irrational exuberance and emphasis on rail transit has left us growing the chaos Burton described.
And here we are with the loyalists endlessly touting the apparent end of times Houston as what we avoid by doing so. Never mind the rest of the country or the various traffic components in Houston itself.
WES was insanity ushered along with a government agency dishonest campaign to advance rail transit at all costs. The insanity of it is even more easily demonstrated by the calls to expand WES even in the face of it’s horrific failure. Same goes for our TOD, smart growth, attempt to heavily subsidize the region into some Beaverton Round, SoWa, high density mixed use utopia with affordable housing. What an endless campaign of nonsense while our region also has our own terrible traffic congestion and poor air quality problems.
With the abolition of traffic capacity accommodations and the campaign to deliberately worsen traffic by clogging thoroughfares with rail transit Burton’s chaos will certainly worsen until your favorite electeds are removed from office and control of their chaos making transportation planning.
I would be opposed to any EXCESSIVE spending on any kind of development strategy. The greater the amount of money flowing in for infrastructure purposes the greater the number of out of state job seekers are attracted—and consequently the greater the number of people permanently settling here—until the cycle starts over again.
I am not saying planners should not be aware of the future.
The last major transportation planning brouhaha we had started about 1970 and lasted through the defeat of the Mt Hood Freeway proposal and the building of the Gresham MAX. Now thirty years later we are once again in a major discussion. I think it would be really bad if these major discussions occurred at a ten year frequency—or worse yet were constant.
But we do have some major needs. The SW Washington RTC had identified some of them ten years ago, as my previous comment noted. Connecting Vancouver more directly to the projected growth in Washington County—and relieving traffic from the overflowing I-5–seems pretty obvious to me.
A kind and observant recording secretary at the Bi-State coordinating committee summarized this as “induced population growth.” Runaway growth would also be a suitable term.
Connecting Vancouver more directly to the projected growth in Washington County—and relieving traffic from the overflowing I-5–seems pretty obvious to me too.
But light rail and our planning arena is a deliberate effort to do the opposite under the boogeymen concerns of “induced demand” & “sprawl”
with more Beaverton Round failures continually presented as remedies.
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2009/07/beaverton_rounds_central_plant.html
I said: “… if you look at the archives around here you’ll see that Houston is brought up as a shining example time and time again by critics of Metro and Portland …”
John E. said: “Oh BS, Bob … If you look at the archives everywhere you’ll see that Houston is brought up by you and yours time and time again … Houston is a boogeyman … you use to collapse discussion on real problems”
From the archives:
“John E.”, April 15, 2008 9:20 AM:
In at least one other thread you were the first to bring up Houston at all. So drop the righteous, demeaning tone and move on with the discussion. If WS wants to bring up Houston to make a point, that’s fine.
WES was insanity ushered along with a government agency dishonest campaign to advance rail transit at all costs.
Train Wreck
“Connecting Vancouver more directly to the projected growth in Washington County—and relieving traffic from the overflowing I-5–seems pretty obvious to me too.
But light rail and our planning arena is a deliberate effort to do the opposite under the boogeymen concerns of “induced demand” & “sprawl”
with more Beaverton Round failures continually presented as remedies.”
>>>> Even if light rail does get extended to Vancouver, to go to Washington County from there would involve taking one all-stop inflexible light rail line and transferring downtown to another all-stop inflexible light rail line, a trip which would take about or over an hour.
NOW, if we had done the most efficacious thing for Portland Metro and built a good busway system, you could offer direct one seat express buses from Vancouver to Washington County, if the demand warranted. Wanna bet trip time would be HALF?
Unfortunately, the rail nuts captured the transit agenda here, and now we are stuck with an slow inflexible system which will damage the Metro area in the long run.
ws Says: Bridge/road costs don’t magically go away once the capital costs are paid for. Tolls should be in “perpetuity” knowing this fact.
Shouldn’t they?
JK Says: Transit costs don’t magically go away once the capital costs are paid for. Fares should pay the full cost in “perpetuity”.
Shouldn’t they?
JK Says: BTW, there is no good reason to have tolls on the bridge. The tolls are to pay for the toy train and intersections rebuilds. Strip those out of the project and there is no need for tolls.
Thanks
JK
Nick theoldurbanist Says: NOW, if we had done the most efficacious thing for Portland Metro and built a good busway system, you could offer direct one seat express buses from Vancouver to Washington County, if the demand warranted. Wanna bet trip time would be HALF?
JK: Close. Don’t waste money on busways (the real high capacity transit – light rail is just a toy by comparison), just run buses in free flowing general purpose lanes.
Most of Portland would be free flowing if we had spent the money of roads instead of rails.
The other major congestion creator in Portland is increased density, as density, all by itself, increases congestion.
Nick theoldurbanist Says: Unfortunately, the rail nuts captured the transit agenda here, and now we are stuck with an slow inflexible system which will damage the Metro area in the long run.
JK:How true.
Rail nuts and developers. (Development being the real reason for building rail.)
See PortlandFacts.com
Thanks
JK
Oh knock it off Bob.
The context ws awas using was Houston as the only alternative to our insanity.
YOUR pitch was that Houston is always raised by critics as the choice for Portland.
AND I did not raise Houston in that context at all. The only reason I even raise Houston, Atlanta and LA is because you planning loyalists ALWAYs trumpet them as the evil we can only avoid by more of OUR same. Forever skirting around the obvious litany of other approaches available.
And as ususal you avoid the other more cogent points.
Primarily that our approach is a failure and a deliberate overcrowding chaos.
Another would be the insane promotion of more WES and More Beaverton Round-like development to go with it. Or any number of other specific examples around the region.
The shiny wrapper of theories PT likes to cling to has degraded beneath using for any more discussion.
John E –
Your usual and unwelcome habit of insulting people aside, it is also not your choice as to who gets to bring up Houston and who doesn’t. You’ve exhibited no reluctance in the past at mentioning Houston. You don’t get to dismiss WS because it was mentioned here.
Either engage in a civil, factual discussion, or go away. I don’t care which.
John E:“If you honestly have never heard of the many other options besides Portland or the “rapid highway expansion” of the Houston boogeyman there’s NO sense attempting to provide them now. If you have any genuine interest there’s the Internet and at least a 100 metropolitan areas with different approaches you pretend to be unaware of.”
ws:I feel there are other city examples for growth and transportation in the US, though you are making it out like each city utilizes a vastly different method. Hardly. Portland and Houston just happen to be at the extremes of one another.
There may be 100 cities out there to look at, but there’s not 100 different ways of operating metro area’s transportation system.
I’m all for change in our transportation system, but it seems there is little recognition from automobile-jihadists to admit that their form of transportation is incredibly subsidized. Yet, the finger pointing continues without any self-reflection, and we will be right back where we started: transit people on one side and automobile people on the other side.
John E:“But light rail and our planning arena is a deliberate effort to do the opposite under the boogeymen concerns of “induced demand” & “sprawl” with more Beaverton Round failures continually presented as remedies.”
ws:Pointing to the Round as a failure is premature, not to mention it is merely one example. You are simply avoiding the many other developments that do work that are of this nature.
I would like to note that the Round is simply an island, and future development around it may make the area work.
Or would you like for me to go around the metro area and take a bunch of pictures of unbuilt subdivisions that have been sitting there for a year already and point to that as a “failure”?
I don’t find much utility in doing that.
“The other major congestion creator in Portland is increased density, as density, all by itself, increases congestion.”
The reality is, though, that it is not “all by itself.” Some of our density is good old fashioned “sociological phenomenon” (i.e. a shift in market realities) and some of it is miscalculated planning enthusiasm. Portland, as its name indicates, is a ‘port city” and the market realities are always different in seaports than in interior cities. I don’ think districts like the Pearl or SOWA are significantly contradicting the realities of this city becoming, as it has been in the past, a major port of entry into the US.
But that is just my marginally informed opinion…..
If you had a model of infrastructure workable for Salt Lake City, Wichita, KS, or Omaha, Neb—it probably wouldn’t transfer to a port city.
JK:“BTW, there is no good reason to have tolls on the bridge. The tolls are to pay for the toy train and intersections rebuilds. Strip those out of the project and there is no need for tolls.”
ws:Most of the traffic generated in the area are from people getting on and off around that section of roadway. Not redoing the interchanges would probably put a huge hamper on any real congestion relief.
From a construction standpoint, is that even feasible?
There is a lot of truth to the statement that:
“Most of the traffic generated in the area are from people getting on and off around that section of roadway.”
The congestion one experiences further south in the Rose Quarter—during afternoon commutes—has contributory causes much closer to the bridge. So, in a way, having some extra capacity there would help. The problem I see, however, is that it doesn’t do much to solve our other transportation needs. Therefore, for the cost, not a prudent investment.
Either engage in a civil, factual discussion, or go away. I don’t care which.
Bob is funny!
ws: I’m all for change in our transportation system, but it seems there is little recognition from automobile-jihadists to admit that their form of transportation is incredibly subsidized.
JK: That’s because IT IS NOT heavily subsidized.
Take a look at:
1. Highway users pay more than their costs, U.S. Department of Transportation, : Federal Subsidies to Passenger Transportation
Summarized at: portlandfacts.com/Roads/RoadSubsidy.htm
2. Subsidies to gasolene autos are a tiny fraction of the subsidies to transit:
Mark Delucchi, ACCESS NUMBER 16 • SPRING 2000, page 12
Summarized at: portlandfacts.com/Roads/Docs/Delucchi_Chart.htm
3. ti.org/antiplanner/?p=500
ws: Yet, the finger pointing continues without any self-reflection, and we will be right back where we started: transit people on one side and automobile people on the other side.
JK: Two things need to happen.
1. Transit supporters need to start telling the truth:
Transit is much more expensive than driving.
Transit does not save energy compared to small cars.
The above applies even the giant high density USA cities’ transit systems.
2. Transit users need to pay their own way, instead of depending of welfare for 80% of their cost, then falsely claiming that autos are also subsidized.
I’ll let John E. point out your errors about the round
Thanks
JK
ws: Not redoing the interchanges would probably put a huge hamper on any real congestion relief.
JK: Study Ex 5-18, 5-19, 6-12, 6-13,7-11, 7-12, 8-11, & 8-12 of the CRC Traffic Technical Report. This will give you a picture of where the problems really are.
ws: From a construction standpoint, is that even feasible?
JK: Why not? SR-14 is the only one that HAS to be dealt with because of the altitude.
Of course there is no need for “high capacity transit” with only 1650 daily commuters on transit. 81,000 people make daily round trips (or equal) in cars and trucks.
Thanks
JK
JK:That’s because IT IS NOT heavily subsidized.
ws:Not to beat a dead horse, but we’ve been through this a million times on this and other blogs. I will not back down from misinformation from being spread to unknowing people, therefore I feel compelled to reply and reiterate the same old:
1) Only 57.01% of highway “user fees” cover the costs of our nation’s highways:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/hf10.cfm
These stats are discounting local roads.
2) Mark Delucchi puts the extra costs @ 20-70 cents/gallon for interal costs not covered by user fees – on top of the ~40 cents state/federal taxes + elastic costs of oil.
http://pubs.its.ucdavis.edu/download_pdf.php?id=1139
The higher cost of oil will undoubtedly decrease VMT drastically thus increase the need for even higher taxes at the pump to cover the costs (as demand to drive drops fees drop too).
Note: these extra costs do not cover for external costs of environmental, military, and municipal safety services devoted to automobiles.
From Delucci’s paper:
“Furthermore, our estimate here is only of
the difference between user tax and fee payments to government and actual government monetary outlays for motor-vehicle infrastructure and services; it does not include the cents-per-gallon-value of any non-monetary
environmental or oil-use externalities such as global warming or the macroeconomic costs of oil disruptions. Incorporation of these and other external costs could further raise the price of fuel by on the order of a $1 per gallon of motor fuel (Parry and Small, 2005; Delucchi, 2000; Delucchi, 1997). We may conclude, then,
that motor-vehicle users in the US – unlike users in most European countries – do not ‘‘pay their way’’.”
That brings the total to $1.60-$2.10 (actually more because he does not include all external costs) needed to be added to the cost of a gallon of gasoline to cover automobile costs. People will not drive nearly as much if we actually add in these subsidy amounts at the pump per gallon. Keep in mind, people were angry @ 4.00 a gallon and we saw a fairly reasonable reduction in VMT.
JK:Transit users need to pay their own way, instead of depending of welfare for 80% of their cost, then falsely claiming that autos are also subsidized.
ws:You apparently want to continue this tug of war, but cheap costs of oil and automobile operation = less dense areas that do not fully support transit.
I agree that mass transit subsidies are an issue. Why don’t we stop both?
Assuming we stopped subsidies for all modes of transportation, we’d see denser spaces better served by transit.
The mass transit crowd has a valid point as automobile policies and subsidies are crushing the viability of transit being self sufficient.
BTW, do you think you belong on this list?
http://marketurbanism.com/category/free-market-impostors/
ws: Not to beat a dead horse, but we’ve been through this a million times on this and other blogs. I will not back down from misinformation from being spread to unknowing people, therefore I feel compelled to reply and reiterate the same old:
1) Only 57.01% of highway “user fees” cover the costs of our nation’s highways:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/hf10.cfm
These stats are discounting local roads.
JK: And that stat is only a subtotal. You left out:
18.77% ($1,973e6)from the general fund (more than offset by $5,435e6 of gas taxes going to transit)
8.43% from investment income.
14.4% bond proceeds (which will be repaid by road user fees.)
In short you are wrong again.
You also ignored the U.S. Department of Transportation, : Federal Subsidies to Passenger Transportation report. (Summarized at: portlandfacts.com/Roads/RoadSubsidy.htm) Which states:
* Highway passenger transportation system paid significantly greater amounts of money to the federal government than their allocated costs.
* Transit received the largest amount of net federal subsidy
* federal subsidy to passenger railroads was the third largest, except for the years 1998-2000 (Figure 1), when it was second.
* On average, highway users paid $1.91 per thousand passenger-miles to the federal government over their highway allocated cost during 1990-2002.
* On average, passenger rail received the largest subsidy per thousand passengermiles, averaging $186.35 (in year 2000 chained dollars) per thousand passengermiles during 1990-2002.
* On a per thousand passenger-miles basis, transit received the second highest net federal subsidy, second to passenger rail, averaging $118.26 in year 2000 chained dollars
You have been proven wrong time after time. Please quit wasting our time. Please quit spreading misinformation to unknowing people.
Thanks
JK
JK:
You are looking at the federal lines, not the state, local, and federal total lines.
General Fund: 32.243 Billion
Property Tax and Assessments: 8.279 Billion
Mass Transit: (10.780) Billion
Bond sale interest and repayment may mostly be from user fees, but not entirely. This is presuming.
Being entirely reasonable, about 70% of user fees cover Highway expenditures through user fees. Though, this number may be flexible.
Once again, your post refers to net federal subsidies. No one cares about just the federal side of things.
Also, the FHWA statistics also only cover highway costs, and not local arterial and street costs.
These are just for internal costs not covered by user fees, which don’t begin to tell the entire truth behind external costs of automobiles.
Roads do not pay for themselves:
http://www.txdot.gov/KeepTexasMovingNewsletter/11202006.html#Cost
Subsidization of mass transit very well may tell us something about what we are investing in and our priorities, however, denial of our skewed transportation system is complete avoidance of the issue at hand.
I can admit without a problem, mass transit subsidization is an issue. Can you admit automobile subsidization is an issue too? Will you put such opposing arguments on your “debunking portland” website to give a fairer assessment of the topic, are are you willing to further marginalize yourself with the extremist crowd?
just wanted to encourage you all to visit Metro’s Build-A-System tool to help understand why they went with certain corridors in what order, etc. It definitely helped my understanding a lot. Looks to me like they are prioritizing the high-environmental-impact areas first, meaning (primarily) the most congested highways. Looks like a great plan to me!
Nick theoldurbanist Says:
>>> Even if light rail does get extended to Vancouver, to go to Washington County from there would involve taking one all-stop inflexible light rail line and transferring downtown to another all-stop inflexible light rail line, a trip which would take about or over an hour.
NOW, if we had done the most efficacious thing for Portland Metro and built a good busway system, you could offer direct one seat express buses from Vancouver to Washington County, if the demand warranted. Wanna bet trip time would be HALF?
Not sure what you mean here by “inflexible,” with regard to light rail. The tracks themselves all connect, just like the freeways or your busways. If rider demand warranted a Washington County-Vancouver line, the tracks and connections are already mostly there (except the missing Expo Center-Vancouver segment). It shouldn’t be a massively complicated* project to schedule another rail line on the existing tracks, assuming headways/train separation can be maintained.
*Shouldn’t be, but might be anyway. Let’s say, “not much more complicated than creating a new, inter-suburb bus line”?
Inflexible mans once you build it, you are stuck with it.
This is as opposed to a bus that can change routes with the stroke of a pen ( or cell phone call).
Thanks
JK
I believe the inflexibility comment also refers to the fact that if you build a freeway rather than a double track rail with in-line stations (e.g. can’t bypass stations with parked trains) that you can go from the Expo Center to Hillsboro without stopping 41 times to let people get in and out of your car, as well as trade a Subaru for a Honda along the way.
Inflexible mans once you build it, you are stuck with it.
My house is quite inflexible… the neighborhood’s been stuck with it since 1904.
change routes with the stroke of a pen
That’s not necessarily a good thing, for someone who is making decisions on where to live, where to open a business, or where to build, in relation to transit.
If you look at the most popular bus lines today, they’ve shown remarkably little variation over the years.
The much-vaunted Curitiba high-capacity busway system still runs on the same streets as when originally opened. (Oh, an Curitiba is building a light rail subway now, too, to relieve overcrowding on the “flexible” buses.)
I’m perplexed by John E’s refusal to cite any example of successful transportation policy. Well, ok, not perplexed. Amused is more like it.
It’s clear to me that a roads-only approach works to a metro area size of 200,000 or so. Beyond this, it gets problematic. I’d be thrilled for John E to cite any first-world city Portland’s size that’s been able to keep congestion at bay – just by building roads.
Although watching him bob-n-weave to dodge the question is fun too.
“It’s clear to me that a roads-only approach works to a metro area size of 200,000 or so. Beyond this, it gets problematic. I’d be thrilled for John E to cite any first-world city Portland’s size that’s been able to keep congestion at bay – just by building roads.”
Since I don’t know where you are coming from in that remark, nor very much at all about John E. either, let me just toss this out as a possibility:
Vancouver, BC, population 580, 000…metro 2.2 million (compared to Portland population 580,000…metro 2.0 million) had no inter urban rail until 1986. Its population in 1986 was 431,000. But it’s like comparing apples and oranges. Although most cities will have a congested center, some don’t. Transportation geography will vary, but some sort of mass transit usually helps.
It’s clear to me that a roads-only approach works to a metro area size of 200,000 or so. Beyond this, it gets problematic. I’d be thrilled for John E to cite any first-world city Portland’s size that’s been able to keep congestion at bay – just by building roads.
I agree completely that a roads only approach will be a failure for any larger city, but I do think that only transit isn’t the answer either.
For example San Diego has been doing a nice job of balancing transit expansion and highway expansion, including planning for HOT/BRT lanes on almost every freeway in the region. Other than bottleneck areas they’re not adding general purpose lanes, and in those cases it’s almost exclusively auxiliary lanes.
The lanes they are adding in their 2040 regional transportation plan are going to be for carpools, toll payers (to help pay for the construction) and BRT lines as an interim until funding for LRT projects is available and the demand is there.
They also seem to have a lot more funding for these improvements (a half percent sales tax, CalTrans and federal sources), but that may be just appearances since they’re expanding their LRT network a bit slower than we have. They still have more track miles though.
Of course, they’re also using Portland’s Smart Growth model of town centers (they call it a “City of Villages”), but it’s not as much of an all-transit solution as what Portland seems to be trying to do. They also have the factor of being a coastal border city in play, and basically have run out of space to expand other than into steep fire-prone hills, military bases, Mexico, the Pacific, or parks, so there’s little chance of them being able to continue sprawling no matter how much more population they add.
Traffic isn’t expected to decrease, but at least they’re managing to not increase travel times. They’re also the only route between Tijuana and Orange County/LA/Riverside, so there’s a lot more through traffic for them to contend with as well.
On the flip side of it there’s cities like Niagara Falls, which has removed a freeway (turning it into a bike/ped path) because they were built out expecting a much larger population. As a result of the past 30 years of being in the Rust Belt they’re currently estimated to have double the road capacity that they need.
Inflexible mans once you build it, you are stuck with it.
Bob R: My house is quite inflexible… the neighborhood’s been stuck with it since 1904.
change routes with the stroke of a pen
Bob R: That’s not necessarily a good thing, for someone who is making decisions on where to live, where to open a business, or where to build, in relation to transit.
If you look at the most popular bus lines today, they’ve shown remarkably little variation over the years.
JK: Bob, first you say the ability to change routes easily is not a good thing, then you say most major bus routes have not changed in years.
The reality is that transit routes should be able to respond to changes in need. Rails cannot do this cheaply. If over the years, the need for transit changes, it should be able to respond to that change instead of be stuck with service where none is needed. Rapid response to change is one key way to reduce waste, which raises our standard of living. Building expensive inflexible systems that cost more than buses is a ridiculous waste of money.
That lack of flexibility is one major reason that streetcars were abandoned the first time. Along with the extreme cost of a right of way that can only be used by a few people per day. Unlike a road where the cost can be shared by many thousand people daily.
A good example of this is the current discussion about the CRC. There are 81,000 daily commuters on the road to share the cost of the bridge so the cost of the proposed construction is around 26 thousand each. Transit currently carries 1200 people daily to share the almost billion dollar cost of the toy train, so their individual share of the cost is close a half million each. That is a 20:1 difference in cost.
Spending millions to accommodate the 30 peds and 150 bikers is laughable.
Bob R: The much-vaunted Curitiba high-capacity busway system still runs on the same streets as when originally opened.
JK: Again, they didn’t need inflixable tracks to stay in the same place.
Bob R: (Oh, an Curitiba is building a light rail subway now, too, to relieve overcrowding on the “flexible” buses.)
JK: No, they are building light rail for the same reason they do it here – to feed money to politically connected companies. Light capacity rail can not match the capacity of a bus way where you can run buses every few seconds.
Thanks
JK
JK wrote: “No, they are building light rail for the same reason they do it here – to feed money to politically connected companies.”
That’s not what the president of the rapid-bus system said:
JK wrote: “Light capacity rail can not match the capacity of a bus way where you can run buses every few seconds.”
Oh? Looks like the director of the rapid bus system just said that 30 seconds is the practical limit. Here’s a reference to the capcity of the light rail metro:
In central Portland, at peak hour, light rail trains can operate with very short headways. (The Rose Quarter and Steel Bridge interlocks are a limiting factor, as is the timing of the signal grid downtown. Eliminate those, and you can have even closer headways if required.)
Our Portland streetcars, if we had enough vehicles in service, can operate with minimal headways. Here’s a video example on YouTube of a regular-service streetcar arriving within 15-20 seconds of a chartered streetcar departing:
The surface trams in Budapest can carry up to 10,500 passengers per hour per line. These are like very, very long streetcars with a continous interior passage.
JK wrote: Inflexible mans once you build it, you are stuck with it.
Kind of like the eastbank I-5 freeway and the Marquam Bridge, I agree.
Bob: During peak hours, buses on the main routes are already arriving at almost 30-second intervals; any more buses, and they would back up.
JK: How many millions of taxpayer dollars to avoid a little “backup”? Why not double the buses to 15 sec and widen the lanes at the stations.
Sounds like pork to me.
Bob: The surface trams in Budapest can carry up to 10,500 passengers per hour per line. These are like very, very long streetcars with a continous interior passage.
JK: Pretty pathetic compared to the Holland tunnel which carries around 30,000 per hour on buses.
Thanks
JK
How many millions of taxpayer dollars to avoid a little “backup”? Why not double the buses to 15 sec and widen the lanes at the stations.
You seem to be unfamiliar with Curitiba’s system. To widen the bus lanes on mixed-use streets, you’d have to eliminate auto lanes and/or street parking. The island platforms are already nearly as narrow as the shelters. The busways in freeway medians already have crowded platforms, there’s nowhere to widen the lanes without removing freeway lanes from private autos.
Curitiba Busway Photo – Mixed-Use Street
Pretty pathetic compared to the Holland tunnel which carries around 30,000 per hour on buses.
Now you’re using examples from Manhattan? Fine. The Holland Tunnel is infamous for accidents and delays. It is, by your usage of the term, “inflexible”. Buses stuck in the tunnel and the approaching tollways have no alternate routes availble.
What is your source for the 30,000 number, by the way?
—-
Earlier:
JK wrote: Bob, first you say the ability to change routes easily is not a good thing, then you say most major bus routes have not changed in years.
Yes, that’s right. Both statements are completely compatible. There’s a reason that major bus routes haven’t changed: Moving them somewhere else is a really bad idea. Even when we fiddle with the endpoints, and which downtown streets a bus line terminates on, it leads to confusion and complaints. My point is that the whole oft-touted claim of “flexibility” is, in the absense of adequate qualifiers, a canard.
Bob R. Says: Now you’re using examples from Manhattan? Fine. The Holland Tunnel is infamous for accidents and delays. It is, by your usage of the term, “inflexible”. Buses stuck in the tunnel and the approaching tollways have no alternate routes availble.
Streetfilms has an educational video about problems with buses and the Hudson River. It’s scarcely a role model, although the number of people moving through there certainly says a great deal about the value of public transit.
According to a local advocacy group, 62,000 people travel on the dedicated bus lane in the Lincoln Tunnel during the morning commute. 9,000 buses.
http://www.tstc.org/
But you can hardly discuss New York’s transit system without mentioning rail. One of those “inflexible” subway lines opened in 1904 and they haven’t had to move it yet. The Long Island Railroad has been around since 1834 and carries 300,000 people every day.
It might just have something to do with the number of people who commute to NYC, which I’m guessing is a little higher than Portland’s commute.
JK:“The reality is that transit routes should be able to respond to changes in need. Rails cannot do this cheaply. If over the years, the need for transit changes, it should be able to respond to that change instead of be stuck with service where none is needed. Rapid response to change is one key way to reduce waste, which raises our standard of living. Building expensive inflexible systems that cost more than buses is a ridiculous waste of money.”
ws:It’s not supposed to, it’s planned direct growth along those areas. Are highways “flexible”? Hardly. Though, lots of planning does go into the development of highways.
“But you can hardly discuss New York’s transit system without mentioning rail. One of those “inflexible” subway lines opened in 1904 and they haven’t had to move it yet. The Long Island Railroad has been around since 1834 and carries 300,000 people every day.
It might just have something to do with the number of people who commute to NYC, which I’m guessing is a little higher than Portland’s commute.”
>>>> New York has the DENSITY and the travel CORRIDORS for rail operations. Portland, no way.
This has been my argument all along on this blog: that while rail is essential for places like New York, it is not suitable for Portland. Busways and BRT would serve us much better, given our density.
“My point is that the whole oft-touted claim of “flexibility” is, in the absence of adequate qualifiers, a canard.”
>>>> QUALIFIER: A MAX train cannot leave the track to branch off and serve different neighborhoods, like a bus can get off a busway. Transfers to buses are involved, driving away potential ridership, or SPRAWLING park ‘n rides. Example: going to Jantzen Beach and Vancouver. Example: Going to Tanasbourne from Willow Creek.
>>>> QUALIFIER: MAX is an all-stop operation. No limited or express service can be offered – no problem with busways/BRT.
MAX is an all-stop operation. No limited or express service can be offered
The stop spacing on MAX, outside of downtown, makes it inherently a “limited stop” service when compared to bus service which typically has that moniker.
A MAX train cannot leave the track to branch off and serve different neighborhoods
If you branch the buses off of the busway, you inherently have much lower headways in the outlying regions, and this can often mean longer trip times and longer waits, even though there is a “one seat ride”, compared to using feeder buses. I detailed this with example nubmers to you a few years ago, but you need a much higher number of buses and the corresponding operator resources to make branching busway service comparable to rail + local service.