The word on the street is that advocates for major bikes trails (Sullivans Gulch Trail, North Portland Greenway) are going to argue for a higher priority in the funding sequence for the Bicycle Master Plan.
The Sullivans Gulch folks have refreshed their web site as they gear up to testify on Tuesday.
11 responses to “Trail Advocates Gear Up for Bike Master Plan”
Took a quick look at the map of proposed projects…. the Sullivan’s Gulch bikeway looks promising (although it might be a no-go if Union Pacific decides to add a second set of tracks), and I’d love to see a Willamette Greenway extension to Lake O. instead of the proposed streetcar.
“…I’d love to see a Willamette Greenway extension to Lake O. instead of the proposed streetcar.”
>>>> Now there’s an idea! Peds and bike fans would probably love it, and rail fans naturally would hate it.
a Willamette Greenway extension to Lake O. instead of the proposed streetcar
Isn’t the plan to do both? Now I know that finding room for both might be an issue, but it’s not legally possible along all stretches to swap out the streetcar (well, the current rail line) for a trail.
An interesting question, concerning replacing the Jefferson Branch line (the LO streetcar route) with a trail instead of a streetcar: Apparently, the easement wouldn’t permit a rails-to-trails conversion–or parts thereof.
Has anyone attempted to modify the easement in such place with the affected property owners–make ’em a deal of “let us put in a trail and we’ll rip up the tracks? Otherwise, its streetcars every fifteen minutes?”
I’m a bit dubious WRT the LO streetcar myself.
and rail fans naturally would hate it.
Once again with these mythical “rail fans”.
Perhaps, just perhaps, people who support a transit system which has a variety of components, both bus-and-rail-based, might be just a tad bit angry at the abandonment of a legally-for-rail right-of-way, which was specifically purchased and set aside in the hope that there might one day be a return of regular passenger rail service, yes.
Perhaps we should argue on the merits, rather than casting aspersions upon a nefarious group classification, such as “rail fans”. Boy, I bet the “Portland rail haters” would sure hate that. :-)
The legal restriction: Yes, the easements, and possibly some or all of any leases involved with the WSL ROW, do restrict use to rail transport, but it’s not one of the 10 Commandments.
First, that restriction does not apply to all of the ROW; only to a large minority of it. There’s nothing to restrict trail use on most of it.
Then there is the fact that Metro/TriMet has yet to come up publicly with a clearcut legal position. I get the impression from this that the rail transport restriction would be binding unless, a la Scotty’s suggestion, the easements were modified. This would mean that the successors of the original easement grantors would have to be compensated, and also suggests the possibility of eminent domain proceedings.
The real problem with streetcar is that critical stretches of ROW cannot be used concurrently for both rail and trail. It’s either one or the other. The most obvious example is the Elk Rock tunnel. Project analysts are working hard to come up with an alternative. At last word, the most feasible solution so far may be to drill another parallel tunnel just for trail. It’s not exactly auspicious for cyclists and pedestrians.
The bottom line on this whole thing is that streetcar (and only streetcar) makes the trail MUCH more expensive than any other corridor transit alternative.
i’m all for a sullivan gulch trail just not one that blocks the ability to add a second track to the UP RR line.
theres a new path along the tracks in downtown salem that occupies the only space available for a second track. and this is the line that would be handling increased service to salem and eugene and is a major freight travel corridor. makes no sense why they did this.
a trail going through elk rock tunnel would breed problems. it is remote and away from the street and dark with tree cover even during the daytime, even if the tunnel and pathway leading to the tunnel was flooded with light there would be major personal safety issues. so it would only be used during the peak times like daytime in the summer. once it gets dark no one will use it except for late night sketchy activity. being a trail it is public access so anyone can rightfully go there at any time, at least with a rail line anyone on the line is not supposed to be there and is trespassing.
Peds and bike fans would probably love it, and rail fans naturally would hate it.
Hmmm…. I consider myself something of a railfan, but I don’t see a streetcar working in this particular corridor. Then again, after reading the points Scotty and jon raised, I’m now unsure if a trail’s gonna work either.
i’m all for a sullivan gulch trail just not one that blocks the ability to add a second track to the UP RR line.
Good point…. adding a second track would keep more trucks from clogging the roadways.
theres a new path along the tracks in downtown salem that occupies the only space available for a second track. and this is the line that would be handling increased service to salem and eugene and is a major freight travel corridor. makes no sense why they did this.
I believe it was to keep common sense-deprived pedestrians (of which there seem to be a lot in that neck of the woods) from walking on the tracks (*sigh*)
Regarding the tunnel problem, my proposal is this:
Put a streetcar platform at either end of the tunnel, and create a “fareless tunnel” where cyclists/walkers can use the streetcar for that short hop.
This has two potential problems:
1. The trail becomes so popular that the streetcar service can’t accommodate these short-run passengers.
2. The trail network breaks down outside of normal streetcar service hours.
But it would be cheaper.
(I’m not a member of the LO streetcar committee, so although I get briefed occasionally, I’m not sure where things stand with the latest trail ideas.)
Two more potential problems with the “fareless tunnel”:
1. It will break up cycling commutes, adding time.
2. It will add two stops to the streetcar run bracketing a single track section. Schedules would need to be adjusted to prevent backups.
The LO streetcar extension is already looking at a minimum of 4 to 5 minutes being added to its projected travel time from the probable Johns Landing hybrid alignment and the Moody realignment (& stop) north of the aerial tram. I expect that we’ll end up with about 5 minutes more once we get more realistic projections for the extension from the DEIS. If not, the rude awakening will come when the line opens in a very few years.
This thing is not good for riders. People now using the 35 & 36 for LO – Portland will find themselves spending an extra half hour on average for a round trip. Riders throughout the TriMet system will find themselves having to shoulder an additional deficit roughly equal to the WES one after the Wilsonville and Washington County payments.
It’s awfully hard to understand why it’s getting so much unquestioning support.
It’s awfully hard to understand why it’s getting so much unquestioning support.
I’m guessing that $60 million (IIRC) in “matching” federal funds just for contributing the (already paid for) right-of-way as a “local share” has something to do with it. As does the “use it or lose it” nature of the rail easement.