The original open thread for topic suggestions* has grown quite large, and isn’t always easy to find. I’m going to experiment with starting monthly open threads. Here’s one, just two days late…
To get things started, here’s a link (sent in by a reader) to an interesting article on how vehicles with bicycles on the roof or cargo carriers were running into trouble with the rules on extra-height vehicles established by the Ohio Turnpike Commission, and having to pay extra tolls:
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/01/ohio_turnpike_commission_rever.html
*Topics which have been already declared off-topic for the entire blog need not be re-suggested. :-)
31 responses to “February, 2010 Open Thread”
Great! Now all you need to do is fix the link on the side bar, the one that says “Open thread for topic suggestions”, so that it points here and not to the 2006 thread. (You might want to close the old thread out, and post a final message redirecting people here, while you are at it).
One advantage of having a new thread, of course, is that the site software won’t automatically flag posts to the open topic thread for moderation. (A common spammer practice is posting spam to older threads on blogs; on the hope that no humans will object but search engines will nonetheless take note).
To keep THIS post from being too meta, how about some commentary on the ongoing Portland Plan? If you think that we should spend a few billion dollars on a subway for MAX (or not), this is the forum for you!
The link is fixed.
The Portland Plan is in “existing conditions” data validation right now. Come to a hearing and testify about our background reports!
I was looking through some of the documents, and is there a part that says “crosstown trips on transit take intolerably long” (particularly for MAX, which is supposed to be “rapid transit”)?
This is a City of Portland plan, obviously, and the city MIGHT not consider something like a MAX tunnel or bypass to be a priority; given that it may well benefit suburban commuters moreso than city residents; but it is my understanding that any downtown MAX enhancements (beyond new lines heading outwards) are within the scope of this planning.
Am I right, or all wet?
For the life of me I can’t understand why TriMet doesn’t just eliminate half of the downtown Red/Blue Line stops. Is there anyone in the whole city who doesn’t think there are too many?
why TriMet doesn’t just eliminate half of the downtown Red/Blue Line stops
Politics. Stops have constituencies. Overall, I think that if a tunnel is going to be really wanted in the future, they shouldn’t have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on a second surface line.
An east/west subway carrying the Blue, Red, and (re-routed to Beaverton) Green lines would work, while keeping the mall alignment for North/South Yellow and (in the future) Orange lines.
Assuming a long tunnel (say, entry portal by PGE Park, down Morrison with a stop at the transit mall/Pioneer Square, then under the river with stops at Rose Quarter and Lloyd Center), the existing E/W MAX line could become a streetcar alignment from PGE Park to Lloyd Center, sharing the Steel Bridge with the Orange and Yellow lines.
An east/west tunnel is potentially workable while still getting long-term MAX use out of the mall tracks.
An east/west subway carrying the Blue, Red, and (re-routed to Beaverton) Green lines would work, while keeping the mall alignment for North/South Yellow and (in the future) Orange lines.
This is exactly what I think partly because (and I’m sure someone here knows for sure) I think the Red/Blue/Green line trains could be longer than two cars outside the central city, but Yellow line trains might be restricted to two cars on Interstate Ave.
I think the Red/Blue/Green line trains could be longer than two cars outside the central city,
Not without extending every platform on those lines. And in many cases that also involves relocating track, switches, signal and power equipment. Extending the platform at Hollywood, for example, would be a pretty major undertaking. And you also have to consider stations in Gresham and Hillsboro. Can they handle longer trains, or do they have similar limitations to downtown Portland?
Alternatively they could extend, say, every 4th or 5th platform and have an express service with longer trains. But given the capacity limits of a 2-track system, and the fact that express service only makes sense during peak hours, that might not be possible either.
The entire MAX system has been designed and built for 2 car trains, and as a result will probably always be that way.
Grant: Alternatively they could extend, say, every 4th or 5th platform and have an express service with longer trains. But given the capacity limits of a 2-track system, and the fact that express service only makes sense during peak hours, that might not be possible either.
Express service would require a dedicated track, to get around the pesky “local service.”
Opinions, brilliant at they may be, are my own and not endorsed or approved by TriMet.”
Express service would require a dedicated track
Only if they would need to pass a local train. In some places, they simply have the express train leave just before a local one, leaving room between it and the previous local one in front of it.
Also, the Hollywood platform could easily be extended to the west if the structure at the end of the platform was moved. Similar for many others.
Hey Bob,
We have had a number of discussions on the cost and energy efficiency of transit vs cars. I had used the national number of 1.6 but you insisted on a lower number based on some limited studies. Do you have any comments about this from http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=2617 :
The 2001 National Household Transportation Survey (NHTS) found that the average motor vehicle contains about 1.6 people (see table 16). But a report from the Department of Energy observes that “intercity trips [have] higher-than-average vehicle occupancy rates” (see appendix C-3, page C-3.4).
How much higher? The answer, curiously, comes from the California High-Speed Rail Authority, which commissioned a study that found the average occupancy of autos in intercity trips is 2.4. Any fuel-efficiency comparisons of autos and intercity rail should use this number, not 1.6.
But that still left a question unresolved in my mind. Does the 1.6 number apply to all travel or just urban travel? About two-thirds of all auto travel is urban, while a third is rural. If rural cars have an average of 2.4 occupants, and the national average is 1.6, then urban cars carry an average of just 1.2 people. Since all my previous analyses (such as this one) have assumed 1.6, this would require some adjustments.
So I emailed Patricia Hu, who co-authored the above-mentioned NHTS report that found an average of 1.6. Does that 1.6 apply to all travel, or just urban travel? I asked.
Literally within seconds of clicking “send,” my phone rang and Ms. Hu was on the other end of the line. She reported that “at least 95 percent” of the travel reported on in the NHTS was urban travel; the Department of Transportation has another survey that applies to intercity travel. This meant, she assured me, that I could use 1.6 for urban travel. (Bold added)
Thanks
JK
In some places, they simply have the express train leave just before a local one
Rush-hour trains run on 6-minute headways or less on the Blue/Red Line. An express train would only gain a few minutes before it got stuck behind the next local train. A 3rd track is required at stations to fully implement express trains without frequent delays to local trains.
The someday reconstruction to lengthen platforms could include widening to add a 3rd track. I think it’s doable in most places, downtown Portland being the major exception. Moving the routes underground is probably the only workable solution there.
As for running Green Line trains to Beaverton, this would make the mall a less effective transportation corridor, and would complicate the desired extension to Tigard/Sherwood. The mall alignment is a perfect jumping off point for Milwaukie and Tigard lines. Perhaps, if the Metro area keeps growing the way we think it will, the mall eventually warrants conversion to a second subway tunnel carrying Yellow/Green trains, 50 to 80 years in the future. For now, it works fine as is.
If the Red and Blue lines were placed in a tunnel, it only makes sense to put the Green line there as well; otherwise, you get delays as the Green line merges into the Banfield tracks.
To keep the mall service at current levels, run Yellow Line run from Expo Center to Milwaukie and add a new Orange Line on the Barbur corridor (if selected for light rail) — either terminating at Union Station, or sharing track with Yellow Line to Expo Center.
I think Jason’s right about extending platforms for longer trains. There would be a few really expensive projects (Washington Park and Sunset TC) but most of the stations would simply mean extending the platform between tracks and relocation of a few sensors and signals. Thing is, the only good reason to put in a subway is to double the capacity of the Blue, Red (and probably Green) lines by allowing 4-car trains, and I don’t think that will be justified until rush hour trains are so consistently packed that people are left standing on the platforms on a daily basis. We’re not close to that point yet.
If we want better speed through the core, it’s a lot cheaper to selectively consolidate/eliminate some stations between Lloyd Center and Goose Hollow. And as Jason pointed out, that’s really more of a political question … nobody wants to give up their stop. (Why was there even a “King’s Hill” station in the first place? Did MAC have that much pull?)
Interestingly enough, it’s only 18 minutes between Goose Hollow and Rose Quarter, according to the Blue Line schedule. Sure seems like longer.
The HCT plan claims that a tunnel between these two points, with one stop downtown in between, would reduce the time for this distance by 12 minutes, to six minutes. (My thoughs for a tunnel would have a few more stops than that, and would have its eastern portal somewhere east of Lloyd Center, not at RQ).
But there is a good point–the slowness of the Blue and Red lines aren’t just downtown. It takes FOREVER to get out of Hillsboro, the stretch through Beaverton is quite slow; and east of Gateway the MAX isn’t terribly speedy either. Total time from Gresham to Hillsboro or vice versa is about 100 minutes. With a tunnel, it drops to under 90 minutes–better but still not great.
Did MAC have that much pull?
I believe it was the Goose Hollow neighborhood that did.
I believe it was the Goose Hollow neighborhood that did.
Don’t forget who the mayor was wnen Westside MAX was being planned and designed… :)
The entire MAX system has been designed and built for 2 car trains, and as a result will probably always be that way.
That’s one advantage Seattle’s LINK system has over MAX — they’re running 3-4 car trains, I believe.
I can’t remember if it was the Oregonian or another source, but I do recall years ago seeing a diagram for a tunnel proposal that had its western portal somewhere in the vicinity of Goose Hollow/PGE Park, curved slightly to the southeast to serve PSU, turned north to serve downtown/Union Station, and then turned east under the river to serve Rose Quarter before finally surfacing near Lloyd Center.
And yeah, the Kings Hill station needs to be put out to pasture.
JK wrote: We have had a number of discussions on the cost and energy efficiency of transit vs cars. I had used the national number of 1.6 but you insisted on a lower number based on some limited studies.
If by “based on some limited studies” you mean “actual ODOT-released numbers based on actual counts of accident statistics” then yes.
If you think that national household survey data is preferable to actual local measured data, that’s your preference but I’d like to see your arguments for using such methodology.
(Or, if you want to argue that the ODOT figures are skewed because solo driving makes a person more likely to be involved in a vehicular accident, by all means show your data.)
It’s fantastic that they got an immediate call back from Ms. Hu — I’ve relied on information gleaned from phone calls myself. :-) But unfortunately in this instance Ms. Hu’s assertion is undermined by the published data in Table 16 from the article you linked to:
Trip Purpose 1977 1983 1990 1995 2001
To or From Work 1.3 1.29 1.14 1.14 1.14
Shopping 2.1 1.79 1.71 1.74 1.79
Other Family or Personal Business 2.0 1.81 1.84 1.78 1.83
Social and Recreational 2.4 2.12 2.08 2.04 2.03
All Purposes 1.9 1.75 1.64 1.59 1.63
Note the “to or from work” value of 1.14. That’s the predominating trip type when we’re talking about comparing with urban transit. And that value is even lower that ODOT’s figure (which of course it would be, given that ODOT’s is for all trip types).
And again, what you’re doing here is cherry-picking, in multiple ways:
1. The use of national figures which include vast numbers of people who do not live in cities as large as Portland or with available transit service, when we have local data available.
2. The use (not specifically here, but in many other posts) of theoretical gasoline efficiency for a theoretical distribution of vehicles (“small cars”) that doesn’t correspond to the actual make-up of the US automobile fleet or the local automobile fleet.
3. The use of national energy consumption figures for diesel and/or electric transit vehicles when our local TriMet agency gets better results. (Although to be fair you don’t do this every time, sometimes you do use TriMet’s numbers.)
Now, if it is indeed the case that a whopping 95% of all data in the survey is urban and not rural trips, I’d like to see that somewhere in the publication. I’ve only moderately skimmed the 135 pages, so perhaps I’ve missed it. A search for “95%” or “95 percent” didn’t turn up the desired result, just paragraphs about confidence intervals, not urban/rural split. (The word “rural” doesn’t appear at all in the document.)
(By the way, the link on your own web site to the Transportation Energy Data Book is broken — they’ve removed the older version. The current report is Here (PDF))
In fact, in the current Transportation Energy Data Book (link above), table 8.18 tells us that 48.5% of housing types surveyed are in the suburbs of metro areas (MSAs) while an additional 22.3% are from completely outside metro areas. Given that table 8.7 tells us that the number of vehicles per rural household is higher than urban households, and that rural VMT is much higher than urban VMT (and in fact, has been increasing over time, while urban VMT has remained relatively steady), I find it difficult to swallow that the composition of the vehicle occupancy figure is really 95%(!), although there’s not enough info from just those two tables to reach an absolute conclusion.
You’re welcome.
(The reason I put a smiley next to the remark about gleaning information from phone calls was to reference this lengthy flame-ridden comment thread from last May, in which I had to contact the author of a table to figure out if JK was incorrectly interpreting data. (Indeed he was misinterpreting the data.) If anyone cares, see the comment on May 20th @ 9:47am.)
(Please note that this blog has embraced more robust comment moderation practices since then.)
I think we should have a topic about what we think of the service cuts, not just one on how to stop it.
I’m pretty sure that other than the occasional anti-transit individual (there are a few who would prefer that ZERO busses and trains run–or at least that they receive a tax subsidy of zero); nobody is for them.
The bigger concern is that they will reduce ridership further–adding service frequently adds ridership, and removing service frequently reduces it.
An interesting series of articles on Ryan Avent’s blog (a libertarian who writes thoughtfully on transit and urban issues):
Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.
Subject in the series is the possibility of small street-legal vehicles for commuters–smaller than SmartCars, but enclosed (unlike motorcycles).
Governors to metro area: Drop dead.
I just noticed an article about San Diego looking at taking sponsorships for light rail and bus lines, as well as stations and bus stops. Is this something Portland has considered? It seems like a missed opportunity with the budget shortfalls TriMet is facing.
Yonah Freemark at TheTransport Politic has his take on the CRC.
Announced today at the TriMet Board Meeting: Robert Williams and George Richardson leave, their replacements have already been appointed by the governor and begin March 1.
Another reason we should instead have an elected TriMet Board of Directors.
Tentatively agreed by Metro and the three counties (and to be voted on Real Soon Now): 28k acres of new urban reserves. See this page for the dirty details:
* Not much new in Multnomah County, other than a small tract near Gresham.
* Clackamas County sees the Stafford Basin added as urban reserve, lots of land south/southeast of Oregon City, and a few more chunks around Damascus. Some of the OC lands are on a hillside (and the Newell Creek Canyon, through which OR213 runs, has been added despite its longstanding status as greenspace); the other chunks around Henrici Road is mostly sprawl already anyway.
* The head-scratcher is in Washington County. Much of the southern flank of Cooper Mountain, and the western flank of Bull Mountain is added–unlike the Clackamas County areas, this includes some productive agricultural land. Oh, and lots of land out in the US26 corridor, near Hillsboro.
Scotty, the one good thing I can see on the map is they haven’t quite blurred Hillsboro and Forest Grove together. Yet.
Robert Williams and George Richardson leave
My understanding is that both of them have served for over 10 years and they’ve (probably) decided to not go for another term. I just see the normal changing of the guard. Not that I think a locally-selected board shouldn’t be considered. But one of the replacements happens to be the head of the Albina Ministerial Alliance.
blurred Hillsboro and Forest Grove together
Cornelius is in between there, you know.
Cornelius is in between there, you know.
Okay, they haven’t blurred Cornelius/Forest Grove into Hillsboro/the rest of the Metro area. Better?
Residents of both Cornelius and Forest Grove probably don’t appreciate the construct “Cornelius/Forest Grove”. :)