Via Congressman Blumenaur’s Office:
Secretary LaHood announced today that the FTA will make $280M available for competitive grants for urban circulator’s (they don’t have to be Streetcars, but…) as part of the administrations urban livability initiative.
A big chunk of the money is previously allocated transit dollars the Bush Administrative never spent.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Portland submitted a strong application to this program to fund the ‘close the loop’ project to get Streetcar across the new Light Rail bridge and connected at either end.
Now could we please get a similar amount allocated for bike projects under the same banner of urban livability?
45 responses to “$280 Million for Streetcars Nationally, Found Under Couch Cushions”
And please don’t forget an allocation for pedestrian projects: crosswalks where there are bus stops on major transit routes (Powell & Barbur, e.g.) and sidewalks, particularly in SW, where walking can be extremely hazardous.
And please don’t forget an allocation for pedestrian projects: crosswalks where there are bus stops on major transit routes (Powell & Barbur, e.g.) and sidewalks, particularly in SW, where walking can be extremely hazardous.
Geez, this is great!
At the rate Portland is going, I may strongly considering moving to the area when the job market improves.
This has nothing to do with this post, but I thought this would be as good a place to ask the question as anywhere.
Are there any light rail or streetcar setups anywhere that are self-driving, either autonomous or remote controlled? Or research, interesting reading on the subject? We just about have the technology to reliably have a car drive itself around without killing people. It seems that something that’s on rails would hugely make this far easier, as there’s no turning, all you need to do is speed up or slow down. Obviously, if things get hairy (like, some guy with his kid trapped outside hits an emergency button), you let some human at a remote facility (could be in India) take over and use common sense.
This would of course alter the economic equation of streetcar vs. busses, since without human drivers, I can’t imagine this wouldn’t make streetcars cheaper in many respects than busses.
[Moderator: Commenter’s last name reduced to initial in this thread per commenter’s request.]
I’m not aware of any LRT or streetcar projects outside of research which are driverless (or remote controlled). There are several driverless grade-separated metros in existence–the SkyTrain up in Vancouver BC is driverless; the DC Metro runs on autopilot for much of the day.
Both of these systems are fully grade-separated; so avoiding collisions with pedestrians or motorists is not an issue.
Why not have buses on automated guideways? Since the driver costs about the same, the less expensive mode becomes even cheaper relative to the more expensive without operators.
TriMet reports bus operating expenses currently at about $97 per hour while streetcars were about $135 a few months back and are probably around $140 now. Assuming a driver costs $60 per hour including benefits, prorated training, etc., robotic/automated buses would drop to about $40 per hour and streetcars to $80. So streetcars would pretty much have to be operating with full loads on every run to have a chance at staying even with buses.
Streetcars would enjoy a similar advantage over MAX which runs about $275 per hour. WES is totally out of it at $1,043 per hour.
What do you mean by an automated guideway?
Should have Googled. I can’t imagine that’d be affordable to construct, or as kind to our areas as streetcars or regular busses. Streetcars and busses can work without taking out a lane of traffic, but these are grade-separated.
All these grade separated transit systems are interim. It’s now been over two years since robotic vehicles demonstrated the basic ability to negotiate in and out of traffic at the DARPA Challenge. How long can it be until we start seeing robotic vehicles on our streets?
I think that the US will be a laggard in adopting such technologies. We have far too few well paying jobs with modest educational requirements. My money would be on Japan or possibly Korea to lead the way because of their rapidly aging populations, wealth, low unemployment, technological savvy, and awareness that their energy resources really are limited.
So the first robotic street vehicles we eventually see might be private cars. Imagine great-granny going to the doctor, a nine year old to school, a drunk going home, or just someone being distracted without having to drive or even needing a license. Imagine the annual highway death and serious injury tolls dropping to near zero.
@R A Fontes,
“Imagine the annual highway death and serious injury tolls dropping to near zero.”
How is that going to occur unless every car is operating as a robot? As long as there are some cars driver operated — and you know that the gearheads and speed-freaks will be the ones who grip the wheel the longest — robotic cars will be at a huge disadvantage.
Those sorts of selfish drivers will identify driverless cars and cut in front using any available space, knowing that the automatic response will be to yield the right of way to avoid a collision. They’ll slam into robo-cars slowing for signals about to change — part of the system is for signals to broadcast their intentions. The resulting accordioning will be fierce.
Things will be finger-licking good for attorneys!
> Why not have buses on automated guideways?
We do have them. They’re called trains, and its amazing the things you can do with such vehicles (things like chaining them together in manners which would be otherwise unsafe).
Obviously there would be an indefinite period where there would be both robotic and driver operated vehicles.
The thresholds for robots should be set extremely high. They would have to be able to deal with all realistically possible and potential emergencies.
Anandakos’ concerns:
Unsafe drivers: Robots would of necessity have all kinds of detection equipment including cameras. There would be a record of unsafe and illegal actions by drivers much like video surveillance cameras at banks and stores provide today. Idiot drivers would soon come to realize that messing with robots would be too dumb – even for them.
“Accordioning”: Robots wouldn’t be slowing for signals at a rate much different than average. The big difference would be that robots would know the timing sequence of upcoming signals and would make minor speed adjustments well ahead of the lights to eliminate sudden stops. Robots’ cameras would also tend to discourage tailgating.
Once robots reached something equivalent to critical mass, it would be likely that driven vehicles would be severely restricted on some public thoroughfares. At that point speed limits, traffic controls, signing, much pavement marking, and many other costly elements of current street/highway design could be eliminated. If a robot could safely negotiate a school zone at 90 mph without a realistic possibility of hitting a stray soccer ball or cat, let alone a child, then why not? We may never get to that point. I hope we don’t, but it’s possible.
It’s now been over two years since robotic vehicles demonstrated the basic ability to negotiate in and out of traffic at the DARPA Challenge.
Actually, it’s been over two years since robotic vehicles demonstrated the basic ability to negotiate in an uninhabited area at very low speeds amongst other robotic vehicles, and decoy/pilot vehicles driven by trained drivers, also at low speeds. Great progress, but nowhere near an operable (not to mention deployable) stage for public roads.
And people say that streetcars are expensive…
Somehow this thread rapidly “derailed” into a discussion of automated non-rail vehicles, for reasons which are less than obvious.
If a robot could safely negotiate a school zone at 90 mph without a realistic possibility of hitting a stray soccer ball or cat, let alone a child, then why not?
That’s a really big “if”, since no such robotic vehicle has ever been demonstrated in a real-world scenario, even at 1/4 that speed.
We may never get to that point. I hope we don’t, […]
Then why bring it up in a thread about urban circulator / streetcar funding?
Yes, the situation with DARPA was artificial and the winner only averaged 14 mph. Of course, that’s only twice as fast as Portland Streetcar averages over it’s entire real “course”.
I think that a discussion of alternative technologies, no matter how speculative, is relevant in a discussion about funding streetcars. But this isn’t my site and I respect what the moderators are doing and appreciate the opportunity to learn and to participate.
What they should use this money for is to make it so streetcar has its own lane in some places like LovejoyNorthrup and 10th11th. This way streetcars can go faster than 5 miles per hour.
the winner only averaged 14 mph. Of course, that’s only twice as fast as Portland Streetcar averages over it’s entire real “course”.
“Of course” the DARPA robots did not have to pick up and transport passengers, and “of course”, the DARPA robots did not operate in a genuine urban environment, and “of course” your comparison is completely meaningless.
I have no problem if people want to discuss _this_ grant program by focusing on _available_ and _applicable_ technologies. It’s perfectly fine to discuss whether the money, aimed at urban circulator systems, should go to streetcars, standard buses, bus rapid transit, or some mix, and under what conditions.
But making fantasy comparisons to undeployed, incomplete technologies intended for a completely different purpose is just pointless. Pretending those imaginary solutions are also superior to what we can actually achieve in the real world is just rude.
Cameron,
There’s no room on either Lovejoy or Northrup for an exclusive lane; you’d have to make both streets one-way. As I understand it, it’s Portland’s current policy to limit expansion of the one-way grid as a traffic calming measure.
Anandakos Says:
Cameron, There’s no room on either Lovejoy or Northrup for an exclusive lane; you’d have to make both streets one-way.
Well, Crud.
I prefer the 35 over Streetcar because it’s faster and runs on the Mall.
[Moderator: Italics tags corrected to HTML.]
Somehow this thread rapidly “derailed” into a discussion of automated non-rail vehicles, for reasons which are less than obvious.
Bob,
It was hijacked by the Busser-MeinCar Gang
[Moderator: Cite tag changed to italics/emphasis.]
Actually Lovejoy/Northrup is already slated to become a couplet (from NW 10th to 16th) as part of the Streetcar Loop project.
This should help ease the congestion sufficiently that Streetcars should not be held up in the shared lane.
Actually, a one-way Lovejoy, coupled with a one-way Northrup, is in the pipeline. The neighborhood association has given conditional approval, based in part on getting certain route/trackwork goals out of the streetcar loop project.
The couplet does not include transit-exclusive lanes, but just having the couplet at all should improve throughput and consistency for all modes compared to what we have today.
Looks like Chris beat me to the answer.
That’s good. I think, personally, it needs it. I would extend it to 21st or 23rd avenue.
I would extend it to 21st or 23rd avenue.
23rd or 21st would only really work if they were also a couplet, 25th would probably work better in the long run, but would likely make 25th a bit worst, which wouldn’t be great for the rest of NW.
Extending the couplet to 25th would make it too easy for NW Cornell Rd to become even more of a commuter corridor from Washington County.
The couplet will work beneficially for the traffic patterns in the Pearl, but keeping the two way streets to the west is a deliberate traffic calming strategy.
Boo-hoo. Nobody liked my pun.
Boo-hoo. Nobody liked my pun.
Oh, I liked it quite a bit. But as a fellow punster, surely you must realize that the best puns aren’t worth commenting on. :-)
Chris, I’d prefer to see the current NW 18th/19th stay the end of any northern couplets.
Anandakos, I liked it. It was tough to say anything other than =).
I don’t think anybody’s really kidding themselves into thinking that Northwest won’t at some point become part of the one-way grid.
all one ways downtown should be converted back to two way, stoplights removed and replaced with stop signs.
Gentlemen,
Thank you.
I agree with Dave. Except for Thurman the streets go only about ten blocks west of 19th before the hill gets too steep so there is no need for arterial improvements.
Twenty-first/twenty-third are an obvious candidate pair, but they are such intensive walking streets it would be serious vandalism to one-way them. Slow is good on both, although I suppose that bus riders on the 15 don’t think so.
couplets are lousy for people who live on them or who need to cross them. They are a clear example of penalizing those who live close in for the benefit for those who live farther out. They encourage excessive speed; all couplets should be eliminated. Autos need to be pushed off the top of the transportation pyramid.
The argument against couplets (from a pedestrian POV), as I understand it, is that they encourage traffic to go faster compared to a one-lane-per-direction street. From a traffic engineering point, they are good for reasons beyond this–the main advantage of a second travel lane in a given direction is that it gives you a way to pass an obstruction–a useful thing for streets with streetcars on them.
Couplets do have one advantage for pedestrians–only one direction to worry about; and if you cross at an intersection on a signal on the “incoming” side of a one-way street, you don’t have to worry about someone turning into the crosswalk.
To me, it sounds like a useful thing to do would be couplets with traffic calming devices (speed bumps, etc), which would give you both sets of advantages.
One thing I like about one way streets downtown is that it’s relatively easy to “make” the signals when walking against traffic. The pace is a little quick, but not jogging.
There’s no way of consistently doing that with bidirectional streets.
All in all, two lane streets with streetcar/MAX really should be one way whenever possible – – for all concerned.
How about three lanes with rail transit in a couplet and two lanes in transit’s direction on each street? Could work for buses, too. This might not be applicable in some locations where the neighborhoods really want to maximize on-street parking.
RA points out another advantage of one-way grids; the ability to “time” the signals to limit traffic to a certain speed.
Pedestrians might be assisted by timing signals to lower speeds–longer cycles, essentially. Or adding “barnes dance” phases.
Protip: A new walk phase starts every 58 seconds in downtown Portland, except near MAX lines in the vicinity of a train and along Burnside.
thank you, lenny anderson. one ways are good for going “through” a place, bad for going “to” a place.
bad for walkers, bad for bikes, bad for business, all so cars can go faster. Is this supposed to be a racetrack or a city?
Where couplets have lights every block and speeds are set for 12 mph (downtown), they do little harm. But in NW (Everett/Glisan), NE (Broadway/Wielder) and elsewhere, signals are few and far between and speeds well over 30 mph. Vehicles moving that fast simply destroy or seriously diminish the liviability of adjacent commercial and/or resident areas. They are almost “urban expressways” that punish area businesses and residents for the benefit of others who have fled the city.
I’m actually surprised the speed limits are as high as they are given the narrow clearances in general (I’ve seen many a mirror smashed in Northwest).
In most cases, speed limits are under State control (even on local residential streets). There are a few cases (like business districts) where PBOT can in some cases lower speed limits.
This needs to be changed legislatively – soon!
I will not complain about the Burnside/Couch couplet, ever, because it will mean the end of Burnside-Sandy intersection. For pedestrians and vehicles, I consider it the worst intersection in the city.
Lenny,
I grew up a couple of blocks from Broadway/Wielder in NE and I’ll admit that I didn’t want to live on those streets. However, even going one block off those streets is a fine, quiet place to live.
If you live on a nice quiet street and it turns into a Broadway or Wielder, that’s a shame. However, if the street’s already there and you don’t mind the traffic, it’s cheaper to buy a house on that street than another street. Look at 15th, 24th or 33rd in NE. If you want to live in an urban environment and don’t want to spend time in peace and quiet on your porch, you can save money by buying a house on a busier street.
And I’ll bet that most of the traffic on those streets is not from people that fled the city. It’s from people that live right near those streets. Even today, when I go down Broadway it’s to visit people or stores that are right nearby.
The Broadway commercial district suffers from three lanes of fast traffic. Why should we not make our commericial districts as pedestrian friendly as possible? as attractive as possible? Why this need to keep as much traffic as possible moving as fast as possible? Its bizarre. A Streetcar extension up B/W will help with more signals and slower traffic, but PBOT should reset the signals we have at lower speeds for starts.