Metro’s new RSS Feed reports that a couple of Councilors recently met with TriMet and local electeds to tour the potential Light Rail alignment.
Metro was quick to point out that no priority corridor had yet been selected from the top three corridors in the recently adopted High Capacity Transit plan (the other two being Powell Blvd and the WES corridor).
43 responses to “Barbur LRT Conversations Begin”
I’d say a Barbur line should the next corridor built.
I think there are some transportation solutions that could accomodate any rising demand for public transit, without sending the federal budget further into deficit spending. I was shocked to see the projected costs on some of the proposed light rail lines. The one you are speaking of here is projected—now–at 2.15 billion dollars. I believe that would be equivalent to puchasing 2500 buses. There is one express route from Tigard to Portland–called I-5–so running buses on that would effectively connect that area to Portland. Sherwood has both 99W and the Tualatin/Sherwood Rd to I-5 route.
Some really backwards cities–like London and Hong Kong—even utilize double decker buses, a fine solution for an express route. Imagine that!
Hong Kong and the UK use double-decker busses for all sorts of things; such vehicles might have trouble with vertical clearances here.
The trouble with running busses on I-5 is that the service is then inherently unreliable–busses get stuck in traffic. OTOH, if you want to propose reducing the number of general-purpose lanes on the freeway, and dedicating them to a busway, then you might have a plan for something that resembles “rapid transit”.
But express busses are more like commuter rail (running on commercial rails) than rapid transit–they’re a point-to-point solution, not a linear one. If you want rapid transit, you need a dedicated ROW, not a mixed traffic solution.
Just curious: where would the ROW go for so-called ‘high capacity transit’ in this neck of the woods?
Barber would end up being turned into another 2 lane nightmare, much like Interstate Ave (and by coincidence they both are portions of 99w).
A much better solution would be to widen Barber to 6 lanes and dedicate the right lane for busses and carpools during the day (see 99 south of Seattle for an example). Then with all of the money left over, we could buy a fleet of electric articulated trolley buses, all of the appropriate wiring for the corridor, and replace the Sellwood bridge without charging drivers an extra $20 a year.
OK, if you think light rail to Tigard and Sherwood is the only way to go then have the riders pay for it. What is 2 billion at 7 percent interest amortized for 30 years, divided by the total number of passengers? Assuming the cost hasn’t doubled by the time construction begins…..
Turning Barbur into a 2-lane nightmare isn’t going to fly–as you note, it’s a state highway, and ODOT simply won’t allow it. Your supposition that Interstate Avenue is also part of OR99W is incorrect–it was decommissioned as such many years ago, and turned over to the city. The northern end of OR99W is about the Ross Island Bridge.
But you seem to think that a LRT line will require closing of two traffic lanes–and then a paragraph later, suggest widening it and adding two transit/carpool lanes. Why not widen it by the same amount, and add two sets of rails? Either way, lots of buildings in Tigard will have to get knocked down for the increased highway footprint.
That said–were I living in Multnomah County, I’d rather spend the $20 registraton surcharge being proposed on something other than the Sellwood Bridge. As I live in Washington County, its a tax I don’t need to pay.
Ron’s suggestion might not be a bad idea–if it applied to all infrastructure projects, not just transit. But I somehow doubt that the current project to widen US26 between Bethany and 185th (for example) will result in tollbooths being erected on the freeway….
Scotty,
Even MAX commuters tend to use the public highways at other hours of the day. And when the population fills in along MAX lines, as projected by our planners, we get sometimes get socked with roadway improvements, too. That certainly seems to be the story on US 26. I’m not sure how widening US 26 near 185th relates in any way to MAX, since its’ route splits off from US 26 long before it gets to that stretch. Who knows? Maybe the widening is intended to get them to a park and ride? I really don’t know….
But, IMO, the Westside MAX is a done deal, so I see no need to revisit that question. However, getting back to the Tigard Sherwood line: haven’t we thought of anything better in the last thirty years?
In answer to my question above: a seven percent interest rate approximately triples the cost over thirty years. So figure six billion or more. Plus operating expenses. It would be interesting to see what indebtedness highway construction has cost us. I sent a note to METRO Council (in the Greatest Places discussion) raising the issue of what seems to be overly frequent repaving. I am sure that that contributes a good sum to the costs.
Most Sellwood residents think a bridge should be built across the Willamette somewhere between the Sellwood Bridge and Oregon City—since our neighborhood is bearing a lot of traffic going between No. Clackamas Co. and Washington County.
Ron,
The Blue Line is running about 7 1/2 minute headways these days during rush hour; the Red runs at 15 minute headways out to Beaverton. Altogether, that’s a train every five minutes or so between Beaverton and Portland during rush hour; given that max trains hold about 330 people when full (is that design load or crush load?), that’s about 3,000 passengers per hour. A freeway lane can do about 2,000 vehicles per hour, assuming there is no traffic jam. I’d say MAX is working out very well for westside commuters.
Whether Tigard/Tualatin ought to be MAX, BRT, or something else, I dunno. I’ve thought it might be a good BRT corridor, given that it has excellent access to the transit mall, but whether that solution will fly politically, I dunno.
I don’t know where the $2.1 billion figure comes from (its not in the link above), but such a figure would probably involve at least some tunneling, as well as a whole lot of ROW acquisition. But keep in mind–Tri-Met’s annual operating budget is $900 million. While some of that amount is administrative costs as opposed to paying for gas and for Al’s salary, each transit vehcile in operation is expensive. In-service busses run $100 per hour IIRC to operate, over $10k per week and $1 million per year. Each. While trains cost even more per trainset, divided by the passenger load they are cheaper to run.
Is there any polling data regarding the opinions of Sellwood residents?
And has anyone considered tunneling UNDER the river in this location, rather than going over it? If you put a tunnel portal near 99E/224, go under the golf course and stuff, and come out near the cemetery, that might work well. But I suspect it’s too much $$$…
Ron,
transportation is expensive, period. Freeways, trains and, yes, buses, are expensive.
“haven’t we thought of anything better in the last thirty years?”
better than what? Roads and trains are about the only ways we’ve figured out how to move people efficiently. Will there be new inventive transportation solutions in the future? Probably, but they will be expensive too. And the same basic idea will still apply; they will be linear systems requiring a ROW.
the biggest gains in transportation efficiency would likely come from people living and working and shopping in walkable neighborhoods.
So is there a better solution than light rail for the Barbur corridor? Probably not for the money. Express bus lanes would cost nearly as much, a full scale metro would cost tons more, and an 8 lane highway probably more expensive by a factor of 4.
so which option would you like to see built?
The 2.15 billion figure is from the Portland Tribune article of about two weeks ago.
Does an express bus need its own lane? I very seldom travel I-5 during rush hours…but I thought inbound wasn’t congested until you get to downtown. I know that 99w in Tigard is very congested in the afternoon, so I realize that is a problem, but it is not a very long stretch until you get clear of the traffic again. And it should be a hub to other lines, anyway.
Articulated buses carry a lot of people. I think Double deckers could work if they are only used on routes with proper clearance. They carry something like 120 people. Hybrids and non-polluting energy systems are coming. New York and SF were testing out DD buses—I don’t know what they concluded. I suppose bad windstorms could be a problem.
Is it really necessary to run a MAX to Sherwood? What’s there…and how many extra people would use a Sherwood to Portland connection?
Tunnel under the Willamette? Let’s see. These days they can design bridges to absorb seismic events pretty well, (There are yearly conferences of Pacific Rim engineers) But I don’t know how you would make a tunnel safe–except with lots of steel.
I don’t know if we have ever had a poll at the SMILE meetings. I just know that everyone seems to agree that Clackamas County should put in its own crossing. Oak Grove Bv. to Foothills Drive is almost exactly in the middle in that stretch and is a short crossing and both sides would connect to a network of roads. I think they could then tunnel westward under DT Lake Oswego… so they wouldn’t be upset.
Yes, everything costs a lot. The wages for labor building light rail lines has risen about 270 percent since 1979. Why are overall costs up 1000 percent or more? The Gresham MAX was $15 million per mile as built. Inquiring minds want to know…
I’ve been trying to figure the impact of the Sellwood Bridge on LO traffic in regards to the streetcar extension. There’s more than a little truth to the Ron’s comment that people are using Tacoma and the bridge to get to Washington County, and it’s the one traffic flow over the bridge that’s growing.
Raw counts: ODOT north; south of bridge; PDOT bridge
1996: 39,300; 22,400; 31,800
2005: 39,700; 22,400; 31,700
2007: 32,600; 21,200; 28,700
Calculated flows: Total Hwy 43; PDX-LO; PDX-SLW; SLW-LO
1996: 46,750; 15,750; 24,350; 7,450
2005: 46,900; 15,200; 24,500; 7,200
2007: 41,300; 12,600; 20,100; 8,700
(there’s a rounding error in the last line)
I think it’s noteworthy that the Sellwood-LO flow is the only one that’s shown significant growth since the weight limits were put in place.
The drop in the PDX-LO can be directly attributable to the rapid aging of the latter’s population, particularly on the east side of town.
The question of large commercial vehicles on the bridge could have a major impact on flows post bridge replacement.
Pretty much every component of infrastructure construction has gone up in price–labor, materials (steel, concrete, etc), and especially real estate.
Some of these might start to come back down, depending on how the economy goes.
Right now, Portland-to-Sherwood is simply a “corridor” being considered–that doesn’t represent a commitment to build all (or any) of the route. Certainly Portland to Tigard is a no-brainer; southwest of there it’s primarily sprawl and rural area. Sherwood might be better served by a Sherwood-to-Tualatin line, assuming the Wilsonville-Beaverton is in place.
As another example, the westside MAX was only supposed to go to Beaverton; but got extended to Hillsboro. Milwaukie MAX won’t be complete until it reaches Oregon City–but right now, there isn’t even agreement on what corridor should be used to get there (via Clackamas or Gladstone?), let alone any consensus that building such a thing is worth funding.
And my real preference for a Milwaukie-LO crossing? Right through Waverly CC. Condemn the [Moderator: Expletive deleted] golf course and build a bridge (4 lanes of traffic, plus transit, bike, and pedestrian facilities) just north of the bluff, right through the center of the course. Oh, and some TOD on either side of the bridge.
We’ve destroyed out enough neighborhoods over the years to make room for freeways, its only fair that we take out a playhouse for rich guys and turn it into something socially useful. Of course, this probably won’t happen…
[snip]
(Sorry if this is a dup post–for some reason my original post went to the moderation queue. Could it be the presence of a four-letter word above?)
[Moderator: Yes… You write like I sometimes talk, but this is a family blog…]
“And my real preference for a Milwaukie-LO crossing? Right through Waverly CC. Condemn the [Moderator: Expletive deleted] golf course and build a bridge (4 lanes of traffic, plus transit, bike, and pedestrian facilities) just north of the bluff, right through the center of the course. Oh, and some TOD on either side of the bridge.”
A lot of people have suggested this route. But it seems to me it would be better to have a bridge where you could easily connect to other corridors. That puts it in the heart of Lake Oswego! The .8 mile stretch of Hwy 43 also connects to Terwiliger Extension, Country Club and Iron Mtn Rds. and to McVey, besides the obvious N-S connections on Hwy 43. It would also put it at the terminus of the Westshore Line—or to the beginning of any westward line on the existing rail.
There is a lot of shopping on Hwy 99E: Car dealerships, Bicycle shops, Fred Meyer, whatever. I think Lake Oswego people would shop there—and not have to go to Oregon City or Sellwood to cross. The east side of that location also has an established network of roadways, so I think this route would be low impact in terms of putting in any new roadway. The last portion of Oak Grove Bv. would see a definite increase and the Foothills Dr. area would have to be reconfigured. But there would be a decrease in VMT and a boost to Oak Grove’s economy. Would Lake Oswego people take transit to Oak Grove?
I’ll leave that one to you. But I think more people would bicycle.
The longer this is postponed the more difficult it would be to accomplish.
I don’t mind the TOD concept if it is done right. Vancouver BC and its suburbs do it pretty well, IMO. Unfortunately along the Gresham MAX route there has been a lot of tacky infill. The cost of high rise residences is another subject I would like to see tackled. But this is a transportation blog.
Sorry, Ron,
I really don’t think we need to figure out ways to get more traffic on 43. And everyone’s right when they say that LO residents will pull out the stops to keep the other arterials mentioned from becoming major east-west congestion magnets.
A new transit (bus and MAX-not WES) bridge with bicycle and pedestrian facilities should get a lot of support. And yes, the rail portion would be with an eye toward the west – perhaps Tualatin/Sherwood if not Tigard/Beaverton.
The bridge would be a no-brainer for the 78 and instantly put that route to the top of the list for Frequent Service designation because of PCC Sylvania, if nothing else. Of course, by the time it happens, FS could mean half-hour headway.
The real problem is generating enough traffic to justify the rail crossing in the first place. We could have done that with an extension of Milwaukie MAX. But now that the streetcar is all but a sure thing, the MAX extension would be too redundant. That doesn’t mean that most riders wouldn’t prefer MAX to streetcar; they would because it would be quicker and travels on the Portland Mall. It’s just that there would be too much overlap to justify the 100’s of millions involved.
The problem with a east-west rail connection is that the homes on the east side and the jobs on the west side are so spread out. Milwaukie/Oak Grove to Lake Oswego would be a sure fire winner for those whose entire trips would be confined to the areas near stations. But that doesn’t include a lot of people. For everyone else, the advantage dissipates quickly as you get farther out.
I still think that a rail/bus/pedestrian/cyclist river crossing into LO is a great idea. It’s just that streetcar is effectively poisoning the pot.
Tunnel under the Willamette? Let’s see. These days they can design bridges to absorb seismic events pretty well, (There are yearly conferences of Pacific Rim engineers) But I don’t know how you would make a tunnel safe–except with lots of steel.
I remember the ’89 Loma Prieta quake when a number of bridges and elevated structures failed while the BART tunnels remained safe and usable. So safe tunnels are a possibility (though I’d be lying though my teeth if I said either a bridge OR a tunnel was my first choice of a place to be during a seismic event). In any case, I’ve been thinking for years that some type of new crossing is needed somewhere south of Sellwood.
Glad Barbur is in the top three and I’m keeping my fingers crossed it’s the next high-priority corridor chosen. Whether it’s LRT or BRT, I hope implementation of the project includes upgrades to the notorious 99W bottleneck through Tigard. Also, I’m wondering if the ROW is going to deviate from Barbur at some point north of Terwilliger in order to serve South Waterfront (though crossing over or under I-5 might be problematic).
LIght rail should replace WES before it goes on Barbur. WES is a complete failure due to its lack of stations, infrequent service, bypassing Washington Square, and the need to transfer to the Red Line in Beaverton. Done right, the extension of the Red Line thru Tigard is basically the west side version of the Green Line. It could be built for a far lower price than a Barbur Max. And please don’t tell me that the existing freight line is too much of a hurdle to overcome. It could be moved outside the urban growth boundary, if needed. Bottom lines, there are no customers in Tigard that even use the freight line. All of the rail traffic just passes through.
Also, I don’t see how Max could fit on Barbur north of Terwilliger. It would need to go underground. The other solutions just will never work (taking Barbur to two lanes or widening Barbur in an area prone to landslides). Running a streetcar line down barbur, into Hillsdale and Multnomah might be a better solution for the inner city neighborhoods
I regularly ride the 96 Tualatin bus during the week, 8am/6pm. Today I boarded the 96 in Tualatin headed to downtown Portland. It took almost an hour to travel the 12 miles on the freeway.
As someone who has been commuting this freeweay for the past 5 years, it has been this way pretty much every week. Fridays are the worse, and up until the economic downturn, was getting worse and worse every year.
Usually traffic gets really bad near the Barbur Blvd/Capitol Highway/I-5 overpass, and through the Terwilleger curves its just a complete shutdown. In fact, I remember 20 years ago watching the TV news and – surprise – the same spot was a traffic jam.
It took almost an hour to travel the 12 miles on the freeway
Well, I think that might have at least been better than getting northbound onto the Interstate Bridge at about 3:00 PM today.
The land uses of 99W in Tigard are just too conflicting with LR transit. I don’t even see the need to, it’s a waste of time.
Is a light rail stop at Costco really going to have an impact? Most people need their car for the trips that occur on 99W.
This is just a huge subsidy to this area.
“The land uses of 99W in Tigard are just too conflicting with LR transit. I don’t even see the need to, it’s a waste of time.”
>>>> Which gets back to my earlier post: where is ‘high capacity’ transit going to go? Build an elevated express bus lane on a viaduct over/to the side of the road, somewhat similar to Seattle’s LINK around Tukwila?
The impression that I’m getting, ws, is that LRT in Tigard will depend on Tigard’s willingness to revamp much of the area–and that Tigard city leaders do see this as an opportunity to clean up the mess which is 99W.
And while Costco is unworthy of an LRT stop by itself, the greenfield next to it might be turned into something which will adequately support mass transit.
Whether Tigard voters will go for this, I don’t know. While 99W through Tigard is a bit of a strip-mall hell, it’s probably better suited for transit conversion than say, McLoughlin south of Milwaukie, 122nd, etc. And there are numerous transit-appropriate destinations in the area.
I agree with Babcock’s post above. Running the Red line down the current WES alignment with more stops and some minor realignments of bus routes (or additional feeder routes) seems like a cheaper alternative, and just putting streetcar on Barbur would likely be a lot easier than trying to widen the whole thing for dedicated MAX lanes.
A faster-streetcar could be done by using only land needed for station pullouts, and not stopping as frequently as the 12. This could also be accommodated with buses a bit cheaper, and might be worth looking at.
It’d be nice to have a train run under Marquam Hill, and then run along Barbur at 55 mph, but that seems like it’ll just be too expensive. Interstate MAX isn’t that bad, but I find myself avoiding North Portland rather than using it. Going to the Expo Center from downtown ends up pretty time consuming, so I hope the Barbur solution doesn’t work out like that.
Converting WES to MAX and maybe looking at adding BRT to Barbur even with just limited passing areas would probably be a more cost effective way of serving the SW metro area. A higher-speed red line to Beaverton and eventually on to downtown on a dedicated ROW would be better than a slow speed crawl along the median of Barbur.
EngineerScott:
There’s simply too much to revamp. The vision is too great. It’s a very auto-dependent area and it’s not going to be transformed any time soon.
That greenfield next to Costco is a wetland. I’d rather it stay that way or be enhanced.
I champion good development and transit use — but if there’s something I do not like, it is trying to waste money fixing an area that is clearly unfixable. And it’s not a bad thing to have “auto-dependent” areas concentrated in certain areas of cities.
In response to:
“Also, I don’t see how Max could fit on Barbur north of Terwilliger. It would need to go underground. The other solutions just will never work (taking Barbur to two lanes or widening Barbur in an area prone to landslides).”
I live in this area, and for the distance north of Terwilliger to Hamilton there is little development to get in the way of widening Barbur if needed, utilizing good retaining walls and/or different elevation.
North of Hamilton, that is the area of the South Portland Circulation plan. That plan reduces Naito to 2 lanes in that area, adds neighborhood street shops, reworks ramps to Ross Island, and also eliminates the tunnel under Barbur (replaced with lighted intersection at View Point Terrace). Important part here is that one lane going southbound on Barbur to Hamilton is eliminated. Additional room is available if needed with little condemnation required.
North of Naito connection on Barbur there is currently 3 lanes. One southbound, 2 northbound and a wide turning lane in the middle. Congestion causing restriction is at the light just north of the old YMCA with all the Ross Island traffic {that will hopefully be rerouted off the city streets with the circulation plan). Eliminate the one northbound lane and make it like the current southbound lane, tighten up the lanes, and you have the space for light rail tied into the PSU tracks nearby.
Add OHSU stop near Gibbs with a long escalator similar to Dupont Circle subway stop in D.C.
No tunnel required.
Dan
A much better solution would be to widen Barber to 6 lanes and dedicate the right lane for busses and carpools during the day (see 99 south of Seattle for an example). Then with all of the money left over, we could buy a fleet of electric articulated trolley buses, all of the appropriate wiring for the corridor, and replace the Sellwood bridge without charging drivers an extra $20 a year.
~~~>What he said!
…………………………
This blog is like the street of dreams when it comes to transit, think as big as you can pay no attention to how it will affect people or the future. I suggest you listen to the Trimet chief financial officer:
“WARNING!”
I have been told the biggest constriction on Max LRT capacity in Portland is the fact the tracks are street level and since we have smaller blocks than many cities, we are limited to two cars per train. Larger cities have as many as 20 cars per train,but they are underground so they don’t present any conflict with street level activities. Perhaps future work should be directed to getting the Max below grade in the downtown area, to allow full use. Both the transit system and the business district would benefit.
I would like to know what LRT or subway (metro) system has up to 20 car trains? The most I know of is the #7 line in NYC, with 11 cars.
Maybe there are commuter railroads that have more than this, but that is real HEAVY rail.
Perhaps future work should be directed to getting the Max below grade in the downtown area, to allow full use. Both the transit system and the business district would benefit.
I strongly agree with this. No, there may not be any 20-car light rail trains out there, but other systems do run 3- and 4-car trains. In addition, it would increase reliability (no interference from crashes, parades, etc), increase ridership (because of the faster travel times) and decrease costs (because it would take less labor time to operate a trip, and because there could be fewer, longer trains).
Underground sounds nice, but the point of LR is that it does not have a third rail and can operate on the street level; thus keeping its cost down.
However, I would rather see an underground system instead of a Barbur line or even Milwaukie line. Could we keep the surface tracks and have a streetcar run on them with MAX underground?
Underground sounds nice, but the point of LR is that it does not have a third rail and can operate on the street level; thus keeping its cost down.
Yes, but LR can run in underground subways just fine, like the San Francisco Muni subway, or MAX at the zoo station. (I think you know this already, but I’m just stating it plainly for others who may be joining this discussion.)
Could we keep the surface tracks and have a streetcar run on them with MAX underground?
Yes, we could. The edges of the station platforms would have to be moved a few inches closer to the tracks (our streetcars are narrower than MAX) or a new vehicle type selected which is compatible with the current MAX platforms.
For east-west travel, a MAX subway wouldn’t have to be very long… careful station spacing and closures of a few lightly-used cross streets could allow 4-car trains to run on the surface on 1st Ave., and we’d only need to go underground to get from 1st to 13th, and then surface again somewhere around I-405.
(Most of the existing MAX platforms outside of downtown would have to be lengthened for 4-car trains, but this is not impossible and is certainly cheaper than running for longer distances underground.)
For N-S travel, a MAX subway could run under just one street bidirectionally (to reduce construction disruptions), with pedestrian tunnels spreading out to adjacent blocks. Look at the Civic Center station in San Francisco, for example … it draws in pedestrians from a far longer length than the trains or platforms themselves.
(Additional note: Some existing stations such as Lloyd Center are long enough to accommodate 4-car trains with very little modification at all.)
This blog is like the street of dreams when it comes to transit, think as big as you can pay no attention to how it will affect people or the future.
I’ve been planning a large number of home improvement projects for years, but haven’t implemented many.
Having big plans, properly hatched, makes it easier to prioritize what’s really important to you when a little money becomes available, and to implement projects in a way that builds upon and integrates with previous work.
(Whether or not Portland’s plans are properly integrated or prioritized is of course a hot subject of debate.)
However, I would rather see an underground system instead of a Barbur line or even Milwaukie line. Could we keep the surface tracks and have a streetcar run on them with MAX underground?
I like the idea of moving the Blue line underground, and keeping the Red line on the surface. That way we don’t lose service we already offer, but could have longer trains doing the Gresham to Hillsboro runs. If the Red were extended down the WES route though it might be easier to keep a streetcar like service from Beaverton to Lloyd center as an additional circulator, like the new uncolored Mall line, and move the Red to the underground path as well.
For east-west travel, a MAX subway wouldn’t have to be very long… careful station spacing and closures of a few lightly-used cross streets could allow 4-car trains to run on the surface on 1st Ave., and we’d only need to go underground to get from 1st to 13th, and then surface again somewhere around I-405.
By the way, Bob, I’ve thought a bit more about the “short MAX tunnel under Morrison” idea, and I see a couple of problems with it: potential gridlock from trains crossing at 13th and 14th downtown, and at MLK and Grand on the east side. Most other intersections, there won’t be a problem if a 4-car MAX train briefly stopped there, or we could design around the four-car train lengths (closing certain streets between 1st and Naito Parkway, for example) to allow trains to run along a series of two-block segments.
But picture an east-bound train getting stopped at a light at MLK. The train would completely block Grand, causing cars to back up. Similar issues would apply to a westbound train hitting a light at Grand, creating a traffic tie-up on MLK.
Solving the 13th/14th problem is easy (but expensive): just take the Morrison tunnel under the freeway and all the way to 18th, and put the tunnel portal at the current PGE Park westbound station.
But I can’t see any easy solution to crossing MLK and Grand without potentially severe gridlock problems.
Please write MAX subway system in downtown, install electric trolleybuses, support Barbur BLVD MAX to TRIMET requests on if you can. I ask you all readers must support to electric trolleybuses numbers addresses to TRIMET recommendation, so TRIMET wants to hear from you and write letters to your political districts immediate for your voices! smile. Thank you for our helps!
I’d seriously like to see further investments in the infrastructure we already have. We keep wanting this vision of extending service out to the furthest reaching locations, locations that are simply not conducive to transit…a la WES to Wilsonville, of all places. I enjoy new urbanists designs and its overall movement, but if you look at many around the country – they’re in greenfields that lack transit access and are surrounding by terrible land-uses and sprawl! I feel we are doing this with some of our transit systems.
Undergound MAX transit service > New transit/pedestrian/bike bridge to Milwaukie
If you could reduce the time it takes for LR to get through downtown by 15 minutes from Hillsboro to the Airport; the system is going to get massive support and increased riders. Not to mention if the ride is more comfortable with three cars instead of two.
Better transit in the core city is going to support high density and maximization of the city’s spaces. My personal opinion of LR cars on surface streets of cities is that some businesses do not like them (although some do), and it creates a lot of conflicts with other uses, not to mention it’s a bit slow at times (Although people who aren’t used to transit certainly are not going to factor in the time it takes w/ traffic and parking).
I could care less that Barbur blvd. wants to reshape itself, honestly. Are we to waste a bunch of money fixing that, when we have a million better locations with closer access to downtown that could be enhanced? Why waste time and energy reshaping unfixable fringe locations when there’s so many locations ripe for redevelopment outside of the core that at least have the possibility of being redesigned?
“If you could reduce the time it takes for LR to get through downtown by 15 minutes from Hillsboro to the Airport; the system is going to get massive support and increased riders. Not to mention if the ride is more comfortable with three cars instead of two.”
Where did you get that fact? Precisely what numbers constitute massive? Is it possible to reduce that time by 15 minutes? That seems to be quite a lot.
But I think you make a good point. Just what is it about THESE particular corridors that should warrant our special attention. There are plenty of areas that could have improved planning, including accomodating more people. And they may already be close to existing transit–such as bus routes. If high rises were built it seems like placing them somewhere with a view would be a good strategy.
Just to play devil’s advocate–a lot of things which have been said above concerning Barbur, could easily have been said twenty-five or thirty years ago about the first MAX line to Gresham. And some of the criticism may well still be true–while the Gresham town center has seen a lot of improvement, and MAX has improved downtown quite a bit, as well as some outer NE neighborhoods, there’s an awful lot of sprawl between Gateway and Gresham that the line passes through.
Should we have not built the original MAX, or stopped it at Gateway?
While I understand the desire to promote more transit-friendly development, the “screw the suburbs” mentality which occasionally rises here puzzles me. For one thing, its politically untenable–if Tri-Met doesn’t provide adequate service to the suburbs, its likely that more and more of them might pull a Wilsonville, and take their tax money and go home.
For another, transit gains tremendously from network effects–MAX is valuable precisely BECAUSE you can use it to make cross-town trips effectively. And even if it primarily serves park-and-rides rather than integrated walkable town centers, that’s better than those same people hopping in their cars and driving, is it not?
I’m not sure Barbur would be my first priority–I think Wilsonville to Beaverton would be more useful, and then we can redeploy the WES cars to some place where commuter rail might be more useful (a Portland to Salem run, perhaps?). But MAX-style service functions most efficiently with large distances between stops, which means to have a viable service, you gotta run it out to the burbs. Even if that means putting a few stops in strip-mall park-and-rides.
Those are some good points EngineerScotty. I don’t want to have a screw the suburbs mentality, but it seems redevelopment hopes of far-flung fringe areas along LR lines are minimal at best and at a great cost to provide transit service in those places. I suppose if we had that attitude, nothing would get built.
Ron Swaren:“Where did you get that fact? Precisely what numbers constitute massive? Is it possible to reduce that time by 15 minutes? That seems to be quite a lot.”
ws:No, you’re right to call me out. I made that crap up, but my general point is valid. Reducing MAX’s stops in downtown core area with an underground system to maybe 3-4 stops would greatly speed up the system. It takes 20 minutes from Goose Hollow to the Convention Center on the MAX, about 8 minutes driving (not including parking) and 35-40 minutes walking. A bike might be the best option, actually.
I think this should be Tri-Met’s next priority along with a surface transit system, buses, streetcar, cars, bike lanes, walking. Convert the MAX blue lines into streetcar lines.
I’d love to see a vote (on this blog) of a new transit bridge to Milwaukie or an underground MAX system through downtown. I’d bet both are close in cost. But what provides better service to the people? Knowing that most of the growth in the suburbs is going to occur where the Blue-line goes, this does make sense.
I really do believe LR at grade on surface streets messes up the flow of things. It reduces left turns and bifurcate roadways. I don’t think they’re terrible — just not preferable.
That’s my only point, but transportation planners do the best they can given the circumstances they’re given. There’s that whole expense thing with raised or below level transit ways.
I write in charging to legal require supporting toll roads and toll bridges in Metro Portland area and south to Salem, OR sends to Oregon Governor with creating more jobs for toll booths and customer services. Toll system helps Oregon pays transportation issues like fixing potholes, transit, others. In addition, I support for electric trolleybuses (articulated and 40-sized buses), 3-car or 4-car trains operates in MAX Downtown Subway recommendations. I recommended toll road & bridges helps paying to LRT, Electric trolleybuses, and Subway Constructions at serious requests notify to Governor addresses to Senate and legislative sessions requests. Thank you for helping with transit advocates! Have many wonderful days! Smile.
I’d love to see a vote (on this blog) of a new transit bridge to Milwaukie or an underground MAX system through downtown. I’d bet both are close in cost. But what provides better service to the people? Knowing that most of the growth in the suburbs is going to occur where the Blue-line goes, this does make sense.
I’d say that a downtown tunnel should be on our list of priorities above Barbur or Powell, but I’d need to see a cost breakdown of what a downtown tunnel vs. the new transit bridge is.
The new transit bridge would have benefits to other parts of the system that a transit tunnel won’t serve as well, such as streetcar/bus access to the east side, emergency access to SoWa, allowing the creation of the Milwaukie and Powell MAX lines, as well as (with an East Side Connector between the Rose Quarter and the new bridge) a backup to the Steel Bridge in case of a catastrophic problem.
A downtown tunnel would be a great enhancement to the system, but I’m curious what the usage of it would be if the system wasn’t expanded more. If the Red line is extended along the WES corridor then I’d assume that would help with cross-downtown demand, but how many people currently try to get even from the Rose Quarter to PGE Park or points beyond?
That would personally benefit me every time I wanted to get to the east side, but I’m not sure the overall benefit would be that great for what it would cost.