Apparently, Allen Alley, a candidate for the Republican nomination for Governor, has decided that Light Rail is a good wedge issue. He has announced his opposition to the Milwaukie Light Rail project.
Apparently, Allen Alley, a candidate for the Republican nomination for Governor, has decided that Light Rail is a good wedge issue. He has announced his opposition to the Milwaukie Light Rail project.
114 responses to “Milwaukie Light Rail Gains an Opponent”
Alley might have a point on this issue.
The Regional Transportation Plan – Final Draft, pages 5-11 through 5-22 shows transit trip times between various origin-destination pairs. Among them, Portland Central West – Oregon City appears to be unique in that its no-build times are faster than those after the proposed transit improvement projects.
Another interesting section of RTP (page 1-31) proposes three interim steps transit operators should be taking during what may be a very long period of limited funding:
” * Maximize operational efficiency of the current system using new tools and management strategies.
* Prioritize less-expensive, short-term improvements that yield the maximum benefit in relation to the outcomes that they achieve – safety, congestion relief, community development, freight reliability, etc.
* Avoid the higher costs of deferred maintenance by making maintenance of existing infrastructure a priority.”
Can anyone say with a straight face that most of the current string of transit projects even begin to comply with this part of the RTP?
The only way you can defend the indefensible is to deliberately avoid the fact that TriMet is destroying itself in pursuit of these boondoggle rail projects.
This particular line will be far worse than WES and will not provide anymore than the same service added bus service would provide at a fraction of the cost. Yet the desire is to waste $1 1/2 Billion.
Alley obviously looked at TriMet, the proposed line and funding sources and came to the obvious conclusion.
It’s a waste of money that cannot be afforded at any level. Especially at TriMet itself.
Last week long time MAX fan Fred Nussbaum (from Association of Oregon Rail Transit Advocates) told the TriMet board “the only way they can survive their fiscal crisis and salvage transit service is if they halted their capital projects, and that means stopping Milwaukie Light Rail”
Now how can Fred recognize this urgent reality yet advocates like Clackamas County Commissioner Lynn Peterson cannot?
It’s because she refuses to use due diligence and fulfill her fiduciary responsibilities.
The only way you can defend the indefensible is to deliberately avoid the fact that TriMet is destroying itself in pursuit of these boondoggle rail projects.
Along with ignoring the many elements that should reject this a worthy project.
How is it you or anyone else can view this expenditure as above so many more urgent needs and priorities?
Especially with TriMet circling the drain that leads to no transit at all.
Yet here we are with yet another demonstration that the agenda for more rail transit is an at-any-and-all costs advocacy.
The idea that spending possibly $23 million to move one company is another lesson is fiscal madness.
One can only conclude that if it cost $50 million or $100 million to move this one company it would somehow OK.
And if this line cost $300 million per mile instead of the $194 per mile that too would be worth it?
It’s madness and you know it is.
It is devouring massive public resources desperately needed by other government services while destroying the very public transit it is supposed to improve.
Alley is the only public figure, candidate or elected official speaking out.
I don’t have issue with him being anti-Milwaukie line. I agree with him there. I do have issue with his overall anti-rail stance.
Since he’s such a road expander he can be first in line to hand over his house for roadway expansion. Oh right, he probably lives in a gated community that won’t have to deal with that.
On a side note to RA Fontes’ point; I believe in rail, but putting the slowest rail projects on every surface street in Portland is asinine.
We need to look to better speeds and higher capacity — surface streets are getting downright chaotic. 1.4 billion could go to such projects.
Hello, subway, anyone?
John E:“The idea that spending possibly $23 million to move one company is another lesson is fiscal madness.”
ws:That has more to do with nonsense regulation. The blue line along the Banfield operates quite close to the freight rail lines. I’m not sure why this is an issue on this line all of a sudden.
ws,
I’m fully familiar with the issue regarding the moving of that company.
Your citing the regulatory component hardly diminishes the lesson.
The fact is if the line DID require $100 million to move this one company it would not be a deterrent. Nothing is a deterrent including the collapse of TriMet itself.
Thus, madness.
There are so many red flags and fatal flaws in this project that is must be stopped now. All of you know it.
Who cares who led the way in raising the urgency of it?
Whether it’s a candidate or Fred the rail advocate matters not.
The ultra minimal service it will provide relative to the enormous cost which will cripple every source of revenue leaves rail advocates in a very tough position.
You can either do the right thing and help stop it or you are helping to perpetrate the calamity.
John E.:
Obviously you’re anti-rail for the sake of being anti-rail. I’m not one of those people, and hopefully I can at least look at each rail project as objectively as I can and base my merits from there.
John E:“You can either do the right thing and help stop it or you are helping to perpetrate the calamity.
“
ws:That sounds a bit extreme, no?
I’m a MAX supporter, but Alley’s right about this specific project. The writing’s on the wall, in 3-foot-high flashing neon letters, that this project should be put on the back burner for a while. Of course, I might be biased for two reasons: 1) I’m a semi-regular user of Barbur Transit Center and this is where I’d like to see the next HCT corridor implemented (and they wouldn’t need to build an entire new bridge over the Willamette to do it), and 2) while I’m not convinced Milwaukie MAX and Sellwood Bridge will be competing for the same dollars, I do see fixing the Sellwood as a higher priority.
In this age of limited funding, more attention should be given to increasing the reliability of the system we already have. For example, think of the goodwill it would create if they installed ticket machines that actually worked most of the time :)
One more thing…. Milwaukie could be served by WES-style vehicles running on existing tracks for a fraction of the cost (the section south of Brooklyn Yard would need to be double-tracked, but that idea’s already been discussed for years). Since the infrastructure already exists, the line could even continue southwest to serve Lake Oswego, Lake Grove, Tualatin, etc. (and I imagine it would have a higher ridership than the current WES line).
ws,
Where do you get this stuff
“Obviously you’re anti-rail for the sake of being anti-rail.
Just because you fail miserably to grasp what it costs, what it doesn’t do, where the money comes from, other much higher priorities, other options for better transit here, the financial condition of TriMet and other elements doesn’t mean I am the one who is irrational.
There is no one who is “anti-rail for the sake of being anti-rail” period.
Yet there are plenty or rail at any and all costs advocates.
But even there one of the long term supporters Fred Nussbaum calls BS on Milwaukie Light Rail and indeed on TriMet mismanagement heading to it’s demise.
Your default into “anti-rail for the sake of being anti-rail” rhetoric is a very lazy and does not excuse you from doing the right thing.
Any honest and responsible look at Milwaukie Light Rail reveals the insanity of it’s on ever measurement.
The idea that it proceeded this far is astounding and demonstrative of the lack of due diligence by all involved which you claim to be only now applying.
Where was your “look at each rail project as objectively as I can and base my merits from there” long ago when it was obvious how mad this line would be?
Where were you and yours with “look at each rail project as objectively as I can and base my merits from there” when WES was advancing?
There is no such assessment of merit being made accept by those who you then claim are “anti-rail for the sake of being anti-rail.”
And here we are about to spend at least $1.5 Billion that we don’t have to build our worst transit boondoggle yet and you call efforts to stop it as “That sounds a bit extreme, no?”
Apparently you just can’t stand rail transit criticism. Even while you acknowledge that it’s accurate.
As for the other planned lines Barbur/99 is even worse and the CRC soars in illegitimacy.
That’s what any look at these rail projects, with genuine objectively reveals.
If Milwaukie LR proceeds you and yours are to blame.
You’re already trying to taint the messengers and muddy the waters.
John E.
There hasn’t been a rail project that (neo) conservatives have ever liked. Period. Even very successful lines like the Blue line.
I have stated for the record, that I am not in support of this transit line (and I don’t support street car lines either).
Allen Alley is right about the Milwaukie line and wrong about how cities work and function.
That’s not to say that we don’t need support of automobile infrastructure (I can think of a few good projects in the region such as 217, Sellwood, etc.), but the typical expand roads-at-all-costs-auto-only transport is not going to cut it, either.
Meanwhile we have absolute environmental calamity in the Gulf region for where BP won’t even begin to pay for its portion of the punitive damage it has wrecked on the denizens (human and non-human) of the area. But I guess those darned externalized costs aren’t real, according to some people. (Exxon got away with not paying for its fair share of damage it caused on Alaskans, by the way).
Any light rail line, to actually serve that area, needs to go all the way to Oregon City, but I don’t think anyone even dares to want to discuss the cost of that.
But I think it would be feasible to use existing railways, such as AMTRAK or even the OPRR. And that would avoid the new bridge over the Willamette, too. But, I was counting on the Milwaukie Gravy Train to lift my home’s value back up! (sob)
A good question, though: Why does Milwaukie MAX have such an exorbitant price tag? Many have pointed out that the “Canada Line” in Vancouver, which includes a substantial underground section in the city of Vancouver, a bridge similar to the proposed Caruthers crossing, and substantial elevated seconds in the Richmond area south of Vancouver, came in at lower cost/mile (or per km) than Milwaukie MAX. (Not sure at what exchange rate–depending on how rates between US and Canadian dollars fluctuate, this may be more or less true). Is it property acquisition costs? Increased costs for labor, materials, or engineering services here in Portland? What’s the issue?
And I agree with some of the above comments that the line ought to go to Oregon City. Right now, it seems, TriMet doesn’t even have an inkling of how it plans to get to OC–down McLoughlin or down OR224–let alone money for such a project; but a route allowing replacement of the southern 33 segment would go a long way to paying for its operating costs, and provide users along the line with better service. Ending the 33 (and 32 and 34) at Milwaukie and requiring transfers to the MAX there may well result in worse service to Clackamas County riders.
Dan
WES doesn’t run on existing tracks.
How is it that you have that impression?
WES commuter rail required that every piece of rail,every rr tie and all the ballsst be replaced at the enormous cost. That line now runs nearly empty most of the time at over a 500,000/month loss.
Milwaukie cannot be served by WES-style vehicles running on existing tracks.
Expanded bus service would be great.
Try and imagine excellent bus service with much higher ridership than the current WES line.
Talking cirles around this Milwaukie Light Rail Boondoggle is not productive.
I would think that having rail advocate Fed Nussbahm calling for the Milwauki Light rail line to be stopped would impress you folks into recognizing thje severity of the problem at TriMet and with this line.
It doesn’t need minor adjustment. It must be killed.
Now I understand that means rail opponents get their jollies but their jollies don’t cost the tax payers and bus service like his project does.
Was it even looked into whether light rail could go all the way to Oregon City on the old interurban line? Yeah its not the best route but given there is more or less an intact right of way the whole length, I have to believe it would be less than the $200 million/mile and not require moving major businesses and could probably get all the way to OC for the proposed price. It would practically run express from Oaks Park to OMSI which would be a plus for long distance riders going to OC. You could always put it in a cut through the Waverly Country Club and on Arista Dr in Oak Grove which I believe are the two places where there might be roadblocks.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a subway under Milwaukie Avenue would be about the same price per mile as the current proposed route while having a better route serving the heart of established neighborhoods.
I think a good number of MAX supporters like myself have some major issues with this line as proposed but are all for light rail in this corridor.
Just to clear up what I wrote before, I wouldnt be surprised if for the same $1.4 billion to go to Milwaukie under the current proposal, they could get it all the way to Oregon City on the old interurban right of way.
If I’m not mistaken AORTA was highly critical of the new Transit Mall redesign (like writing to the FTA to get them to cancel the project) and the original Portland Streetcar (like saying it would never work), so this is nothing new from them.
The issue I have (and I assume others) is the amount of money spent to build a surface line through industrial Brooklyn and in the wide no-mans-land between McLoughlin and the UP line that poorly serves the adjacent neighborhoods. Plus, that the line doesnt go to Oregon City and they apparently have no plans to have it go there anytime soon.
There definitely needs to be some reevaluation of this project and TriMet’s capital program but I’m afraid Alley will blindly propose trashing TriMet to win the support of the extreme right.
The old Portland Traction ROW is mostly “intact”, in that it hasn’t been paved over or covered with buildings–but it’s a trail now. It was a single-track line, and in quite a few places (downtown Gladstone) it ran in the street, not alongside it. It probably would be a poor choice for a modern LRT.
Regarding John’s criticism of WES, and the need to upgrade the Oregon Electric line: The upgrades to that line were necessary due to many parts of it being in disrepair, and having speed limits which weren’t a problem with branch-line freight operations, but which made operation of commuter rail difficult. The UPRR mainline has no such issues. (Of course, it has the issue that UP really really doesn’t want additional passenger services on the line… or wants a ton of money for it to happen.)
1) I think it is important to remember that without the past investment in light rail, Trimet would face many more cuts in service. Light rail is more expensive to build, but less expensive to operate.
2) The Milwaukie project will provide even greater operating savings since its most expensive component, the new bridge, can be used by buses. This is especially important for dead-heading buses during periods of peak congestion. Trimet apparently spends a lot of money on drivers and empty buses caught in traffic trying to get across the river.
3)Commuter rail was considered in the Milwaukie corridor and rejected. As was bus rapid transit.
4) Light rail was revived in the corridor largely as a result of efforts by Milwaukie neighborhoods that had opposed previous light rail proposals. They joined southeast Portland neighborhoods in asking that it be put back on the table after it had been removed as an option.
5) Milwaukie light rail will serve an area that already has heavy transit use. Thus providing considerable operational savings. That is a long way from WES which has had to build new ridership almost entirely from scratch.
The previous comment hit upon a very important point: this project is capital intensive but may reduce overall operating expenses. It is much easier to find external funding sources (federal, etc) for capital expenses than it is for operating expenses.
Despite Alley’s comments, I’d love to see a cost-benefit analysis of an auto-centric infrastructure expansion. It costs a lot of money to expand roadways and upgrade bridges in any urban area. 99E and the downtown bridges are already at capacity during the peak hours. Sellwood will not allow significantly more traffic down Tacoma Street, new bridge or old bridge. $1.4 billion is a lot of cash but it also brings in some big benefits for all commuters (drivers included). My hunch is that an auto-centric plan that provides the same level of benefits would cost significantly more.
One other issue with the Milwaukie line–it has a staggeringly large number of park-and-rides along its route.
Only two park and ride lots are planned for the Milwaukie line. The planned capacity for each of these has been cut considerably in recent months.
How is this a “staggeringly large number”?
If so, that’s good. For some reason I seem to remember more than two.
Even if there were a lot of Park and Rides, is that so bad? I know of at least two people from areas of US-30 that aren’t served by transit that regularly park in my neighborhood to take a bus downtown to avoid parking fees. They get TriMet passes from their work instead of free parking, so they take advantage of that.
Just Saying Says: Light rail is more expensive to build, but less expensive to operate.
JK: This is a popular fallacy spread by the Trimet propaganda machine. It is based on comparing apples to oranges – the average LRT line to the average bus line. But light rail only replaces the most heavily used bus lines (at least before the I205 fiasco). If you compare the average LRT with the best bus you get a different result:
Best bus lines: $0.34
Average LRT: $0.434 (details at portlandfacts.com/transit/cost-cars-transit%282005%29b.htm)
They also forget to count some maintenance items on rail and assign some rail costs to the bus system.
Just Saying Says: Light rail was revived in the corridor largely as a result of efforts by Milwauke neighborhoods that had opposed previous light rail proposals. They joined southeast Portland neighborhoods in asking that it be put back on the table after it had been removed as an option.
JK: I’d love to hear the real story on that. Which neighborhoods and how many profiteers infiltrated the neighborhood process? Or did Metro just conjure up that claim? (I was present at one neighborhood meeting when the neighborhood asked for something. I only knew this because I later saw it in a report and recalled that ONE person, who had never attended before, asked. I later found out that she was the wife of a local planning consultant!)
Thanks
JK
re: operating costs vs. capital costs…
Does TriMet bond future operations money to pay for capital projects? If so, how does that factor into this equation?
TriMet will issue bonds for about $39M for the Milwaukie project. That translates to about $3.2M/year for the next 20 years that will not be available for operations.
While I support the overall project, I’m adamantly opposed to this particular funding component. It’s just over 2% of the overall budget. Surely we’re smart enough as a region to avoid this.
Chris – I couldn’t agree with you more on the danger of issuing bonds against operating funds. The question is: Where would the money come from?
Could TriMet in the future find some other source of funding (say–a tax levy?) to pay off the bond, and then return the payroll tax receipts to operations?
“It is based on comparing apples to oranges – the average LRT line to the average bus line. ”
Actually, I think it is based on what it would cost to replace actual LRT service with similar service using buses.
I agree comparing per passenger costs to the average bus cost per passenger would not be appropriate. But neither is comparing costs to the heaviest used lines.
As far as I know, light rail has never replaced a profitable bus line like the 14 or 73. They are profitable because the buses are often full and therefore the per passenger cost is lower. But if you replaced those buses with light rail, the light rail per passenger costs would still be lower than the cost of the buses for the same reason. It would also be lower than the average light rail line.
Metro wil be comitting $140 million in flex funds over the next 20 years.
But why would any of you not object also to the use of the Lottery revenue stream or the use of Urban Renewal? Both of which simple take from other government expenditures and services without regard for priorities or how replacement revenue would be provided.
How can such a reckless approach for such a big ticket item be OK?
Alley is spot on.
You can’t justify this project. From the funding end or transit end.
Obviously you can’t pursuade the public to pay a new tax for this project.
That alone should kill it.
The whole state should demand this project be terminated.
The State will be diverting nearly $400 million from our Lottery revenue stream to pay off the State’s share of funding if not stopped.
With all of those millions needed for much higher priorities replacement revenue will have to be extracted from Oregon businesses and taxpayers.
The local funding shares do the same thing. Some $150 million will be drained from basic services to retire the local Urban Renewal debt created by this boondoggle.
And again, replacement revenue will need to be colleted with new and higher fees and taxes.
How can anyone justify this project when it takes so much funding from other goverment services, including schools and public saftey?
When did anyone determine this was a better use of those resources? Never. There’s been a toal disgregard for where the funding comes from.
TriMet itself is deep in red ink and cannot afford their share.
With Oregon’s deep recession and people losing their jobs, homes and businesses, public officials should be applying the highest level of prudence in spending limited resources.
“Some $150 million will be drained from basic services to retire the local Urban Renewal debt created by this boondoggle.”
That may or may not be true. Its important to remember that this “boondoggle” may also lead to substantial new tax revenues. That is the idea behind urban renewal districts, new infrastructure spurs new investment which leads to added taxes. It makes sense to spend some of those added taxes on paying for the new infrastructure. The argument is always over whether the new infrastructure spurs enough new development to pay for itself.
“Now how can Fred recognize this urgent reality yet advocates like Clackamas County Commissioner Lynn Peterson cannot?”
Fred has been wrong more often than Lynn. For those who have forgotten, AORTA was a vocal opponent of North-South Light Rail of which the Milwaukie segment was part.
I don’t think you should abandon important long term investments because of a temporary economic downturn, which seems to be what Fred is suggesting. By the time the Milwaukie line is operating, the economy will have recovered, the region will again be struggling to increase transit service an this investment will seem prescient.
Just Saying
No it is a fact that at least $150 million will be taken from basic services to retire the local Urban Renewal debt created by this boondoggle.
You shouldn’t be misleading people with the UR ponzi scheme rhetoric.
And it’s far more important to remember that this “boondoggle” will certainly lead to substantial additional tax revenues being diverted from basic services as more UR debt will be used to spur the development along the line that the MAX infrastructure failed to spur.
The con job pitch in front of urban renewal districts is one that never reveals the millions taken over decades that had to be backfilled with higher or new taxes and fees.
This new infrastructure does not spur new investment other than more government projects or the heavily tax subsidized mixed use we’ve on every other line.
You are misleading people.
Not it doesn’t make any sense to use UR for any of this infrastructure or development.
Because UR funding comes from basic services over decades with taken revenue then having to be replaced.
UR is a dishonest ponzi scheme which has been deliberately presented as complex to avoid public outrage and opposition.
It’s not the “argument” that the new infrastructure spurs enough new development to “pay for itself.”
That’s simply one of the most egregious UR falsehoods.
“Now how can Fred recognize this urgent reality Clackamas County Commissioner Lynn Peterson cannot?”
Fred isn’t wrong. He’s studied TriMet’s budget and unfunded liabilities.
Lynn Peterson has not and indeed tries to obscure the TriMet realities.
You really should stop altering what is happening and what is being proposed.
This “long term investment” is breaking the TriMet bank, will further undermine every contributing source, harm basic services and that is with or with the economic downturn.
So no your version is not what Fred, Allen or I am suggesting.
If you want to argue that TriMet is fiscally sound, or that their service cuts are not a product of bad capital investments that they now can’t afford have at it.
But you won’t find anyting but the red ink Fred and others have revealed.
Making you horribly wrong.
I supect you have not studied Trimet at all and that you have no concern for where this Milwaukie Light Rail funding comes from.
Your rhetoric that doesn’t address any of the severe angles speaks volumes.
By the time the Milwaukie line is operating:
It will have far surpassed the failure of WES,
TriMet will have fallen into insolvency,
bus service will have been chopped much more,
TriMet will have raised their taxes and fees in a panic to maintain transit service,
decades more of debt service will be taking operating revenue money and basic services funding
and this horrible investment will have been too late to prevent.
This slow and low capacity system never was viable or worth the massive investment.
Every previous line reveals this reality.
But apparently there is no cost too high for it’s proponents.
I wager the that the TriMet hierarchy itself knows this project and funding scheme is a train wreck.
The defending of the indefensible we are witnessing is without conscience.
Chris Smith himself says
“I’m adamantly opposed to this particular funding component. It’s just over 2% of the overall budget. Surely we’re smart enough as a region to avoid this.”
Yes we are smart enough.
It’s quite simple.
Put it to a public vote. If the public want to pay new tax for this project then build it.
If not then it doesn’t get built.
Then it’s back to working on a better bus system.
Alright, I’ve been busy for few days and now I see people have been getting way too personal in various threads. Sorry about that.
John E., let’s start with you, drop the accusatory tone. If you want to present your analysis of urban renewal programs, that’s fine, but don’t accuse others who disagree with you of spreading propaganda, and stop ascribing ill motives to those who support various light rail plans.
As you say, “we are smart enough”, and that should include being smart enough to remember the past times when you (and others) have been asked to behave. The rules are simple, and it’s _very_ easy to comply simply by going away.
Any attempts to argue about this will be removed.
it is a fact
No, it isn’t a fact, its your opinion. Its no more a Ponzi scheme than any other investment is.
If you want to argue that TriMet is fiscally sound, or that their service cuts are not a product of bad capital investments that they now can’t afford have at it.
I suggest you try to support that they are
. Because you need to start with the question of how much it would cost to provide the level of service MAX provides using buses instead. I think any realistic evaluation of the transit system is that without the investments in MAX the level of service that could be supported by the current operating budget would be much lower. And I suspect that Fred Nussbaum would agree with that.
“Every previous line reveals this reality.”
Well no, it doesn’t. In fact its hard to imagine what Portland would be like if it had not invested in MAX. No one was worrying about regional growth in the early 80’s when the population was shrinking. Its future was looking a lot like Detroit’s now.
If you start with the assumption that any investment in MAX is a bad idea, then its a bad idea no matter where the money comes from or where the line is located. I am not sure what a public vote does to change that.
Dan W,
WES is MUCH more expensive per hour to operate than Max, because it requires FRA compliant crewing and the vehicles are heavy. They use lots of fuel.
Milwaukee Max will just be another Interstate Max, but with less ridership. It isn’t likely to attract ANY TOD, because it will be hemmed in between Barbur Blvd and the UP tracks. It’s really a dumb idea.
Umm, I hope you mean “Milwaukie” and “McLoughlin Blvd.” :-)
Light rail to Wisconsin probably would be a boondoggle. :)
Its future was looking a lot like Detroit’s now.
To be fair, nowhere in the US or Canada is in quite the shape Detroit is in, and has been for a while. Other cities (like the one I grew up in/around) are in bad shape, but Detroit is a fairly excessive example.
There are some lessons we can take from them, like not assuming that we’ll see infinite growth and that the current situation can never turn. I understand delaying now isn’t the easiest thing, but maybe we can learn from our rapid growth trial and slow things down just a little. It’s awesome having a new light rail line or streetcar extension open up a lot, but it’s also really expensive.
What if our population starts to decline due to the current recession not ending as smoothly as it did? What if people slow down moving here? What if we don’t see population growth, and urban renewal projects just work to move existing regional residents around the region, and not do anything to improve the region as a whole? What if companies that Portland depends on heavily start shipping even more jobs out of town? Those are probably the biggest problems Detroit has been facing, and we definitely don’t want to replicate those. Once you start down that path it’s difficult to slow the fall.
Not to say we’re anywhere near there yet, but the CRC, Milwaukie MAX, WES, etc costs make me wonder if we just just slow down on chasing federal dollars when we’re borrowing on potential growth. While I think in the long run they’ll pay off, will they pay off soon enough to not get us into a position where we’re trying to dig up?
Concern about federal money is quite important.
The federal share of Milwaukie MAX might go as high as $850 million (TriMet fact sheet estimate).
To put that in perspective:
Take a look at another large, recent federal expenditure — the cost of the war in Iraq so far (not including Afghanistan) at somewhere just past $721 billion.
That’s roughly equivalent to 850 Milwaukie light rail lines, or 17 light rail lines (and bridges) per state.
If, given an accurate and dispassionate assessment of the costs vs. benefits, the local voting populace decides to cancel the Milwaukie light rail project outright, then the federal government can continue the Iraq war for 0.12% longer without negative budgetary impact.
I do sincerely hope that skeptics of federally-funded rail projects, such as Milwaukie MAX, devote about 850 times that much intensity to scrutinizing the larger federal expenditures as well.
Bob R. Says: The federal share of Milwaukie MAX might go as high as $850 million (TriMet fact sheet estimate)
JK: If the total is still $1,400 million, then that “only” leaves $550 million in local money. But the $550 million could build an extra pair of lanes from the MLK viaduct to Milwaulkie with about $450 million left over. So we should also be able to replace the Sellwood bridge and add a pair of lanes to Lake Oswego. Or we could waste the money on a toy train that carries the less people than 1/2 of one lane of a freeway.
Calculation:
Metro projects ridership, in 2030, to be 22,000-27,000 “riders on the line per day”. Using the midpoint, 24,500 riders is 12,250 round trips. Accounting for transfers, at 1.2 boardings/trip, this is 10,208 full trips. On average, only 1/3 of the light rail riders are drawn out of cars, so that is 3403 people taken out of cars. On average there are 1.57 people per car, so that is 2167 cars taken off of the road. Spread over a three hour rush hour, that is 723 cars per hour, about 40% of one lane of freeway (at 1800 cars/hr for a typical freeway)
Thanks
JK
I do sincerely hope that skeptics of federally-funded rail projects, such as Milwaukie MAX, devote about 850 times that much intensity to scrutinizing the larger federal expenditures as well.
I do, but that seems like an apples and tacos comparison. I do like that we get back something for the money we give the feds, but I also am concerned about the local money that needs to be spent and where it will come from.
This is the same hole that government agencies have dug themselves into before, and counting on perpetual growth does not seem like the best way to prevent this.
I was out protesting the Iraq war in 2003. Trust me, I understand the costs we’ve incurred as a result. As a nation we didn’t have the resources to do what we did at the time, especially with our commitments to areas we had already invested in.
To put it in perspective, this is another $3.2 mil/yr cost for TriMet (as posted in this thread by Chris.) That’s a lot of money for them. Isn’t a $27 million (or under 10 times that) the budget shortfall we were just discussing on here? Yes, we get federal money, but how much local money do we have to commit that we may not have to pay for the DC cash?
As a region do we really have the resources to build another new LRT line with our outstanding commitments? After Milwaukie MAX should we maybe think about slowing down for a little while? At least pay off some debt, like a lot of people are realizing they have to do?
I don’t even own a car. I just don’t want to see TriMet sink themselves by running up so many debts they can’t keep up on payments. Another $3.2 million a year starts getting worrisome when WES and the Green Line just opened, and the East Side Streetcar is about to open as well.
Just Saying
You’re misinfiormed or uniformed, take your pick
Urban Renewal, Tax Increment Financing, is not an investment. It’s a financing method. And it is not like every other financing tool either.
You may have some opinion on it’s use but the fact remains that behind the obscuring rhetoric and tax funded agency “presentations” is simply redirects, for decades, exisitng revenue streams away from basis services and into paying off the debt created by the UR plan. There’s a money hole left in at basic services. Who and what do you think fills that hole? The same revenue can’t go to 2 different places. All while false claims that the plan itself generated the money usher plans along and expand it’s use. “Ponzi scheme” fits well.
There’s lots of people who once misunderstood but get the TIF scheme.
Perhaps you’re one in the making.
And it is actually much worse than the very similar funding Chris Smith is “adamantly opposed to”
Chris Smith Says:
“TriMet will issue bonds for about $39M for the Milwaukie project. That translates to about $3.2M/year for the next 20 years that will not be available for operations.”
That is exactly what UR schemes do. They take revenue from operations for decades. School operations, library operations, Law enforcement operations, Park operations, Fire operations etc.
I wonder if Chris was aware of this or if he is only concerned about TriMet operations?
I can thoroughly support that TriMet debt, benefits, and capital projects are certainly leading to it’s insolvency.
cascadepolicy.org/2010/03/22/testimony-before-the-metro-council-regarding-the-milwaukie-light-rail-line/
cascadepolicy.org/pdf/4-8-2010_John_Charles_TriMet_Testimony.pdf
Examples:
Fringe benefits now cost 118% of payroll
TriMet’s unfunded long-term liability for the union pension plan equals 197% of the cost of payroll.
TriMet’s unfunded long-term liability for “other post-employment benefits” (OPEB) equals 484% of the cost of payroll. 4 times higher than the second place government entity in the State.
TriMet’s $2200 monthly family health care premium is the highest reported in the 2008 US Transit Sytems Survey.
But let’s not get bogged down.
Let’s assume TriMet is indeed a financial train wreck.
That they know they will not have any money to pay the $3.2M/year for the next 20 years.
Now what does that say about going forward with this project?
How much would it cost to provide the level of service MAX provides using buses instead?
ascadepolicy.org/2010/03/22/testimony-before-the-metro-council-regarding-the-milwaukie-light-rail-line/
First page compares LA Rapid bus/242,000 daily boardings to Milwaukie LRT/27,000 daily boardings.
Read the rest on the link. Every bus element fares better than LRT.
So your thinking is inaccurate. And TriMet doesn’t do realistic evaluations of the transit system.
Suspecting what Fred Nussbaum would agree to is no substitute for facts.
Every previous line reveals the same reality.
They did little to nothing for the local community or the region at large. Gresham? Beaverton? Downtown Portland? Cascade Station? Interstate?
They are obstructions. A fixed transit line, wires barricades etc running through the community. What has East Burnside got from it over 25 years? Worse than nothing.
It may be hard for you to imagine what Portland would be like if it had not invested in MAX. But all it takes to is go out and envision none of the ugly LRT infrastructure and everything else the same only with much better bus services and a sustainable TriMet.
Presuming it would all be Detroit is pretty funny since LRT is only in a few corridors. Everywhere else around here did not become Detroit.
In fact things look better everywhere there is no MAX. Compare the MAX at The Round in Beaverton to the Crossings just to the north where there is no MAX.
Look at any line and face facts.
Investment in MAX has proven to be a bad idea over and over again. Adding more now with all of the financial ailments and funding travesties involved in outrageous.
The public would never vote for this. It would go down in flames.
JK says: Or we could waste the money on a toy train that carries the less people than 1/2 of one lane of a freeway.
As others have pointed out, nobody has yet tried to build a regional “toy train” system. We use real trains instead.
In any case, your “1/2 of one lane of freeway” characterization is also incorrect. Let’s go through your numbers, in case anyone else is still reading along…
24,500 riders is 12,250 round trips.
OK so far… taking your word for the Metro numbers.
Accounting for transfers, at 1.2 boardings/trip, this is 10,208 full trips.
No, you don’t get to make this additional division. If you want to count people who ride the train daily on a specific line, you count them. You don’t get to toss them aside should they happen to transfer somewhere else as part of their journey. Put another way, a rider on the train is making some kind of complete trip, whether that involves no transfers or three. This is very basic stuff.
On average, only 1/3 of the light rail riders are drawn out of cars, so that is 3403 people taken out of cars.
Taking your word for this for now, but it doesn’t seem to jibe with other surveys I’ve seen which come at the question in various ways. Also do not assume that _initial_ mode conversions (number of auto drivers who switch to transit because of MAX in the first year) are the maximum value.
On average there are 1.57 people per car, so that is 2167 cars taken off of the road.
No, again you can’t do that. You’ve been shown time and time again that ODOT’s own meticulously-gathered local statistics show a much lower average per car. These statistics are gathered from accident reports, not preference surveys or a single nationwide value which conflates urban and rural areas.
If you want to talk about the Milwaukie project specifically, then use the actual numbers which are available for our region.
Spread over a three hour rush hour, that is 723 cars per hour, about 40% of one lane of freeway (at 1800 cars/hr for a typical freeway)
Just taking out the incorrect 1.2 division and using a lower ODOT occupancy figure for our area of 1.27, your back-of-the-napkin analysis is off by over 45%. The rest of that analysis hangs on the assertion that light rail will only attract 1/3 of its ridership from people who would otherwise be driving over the lifetime of the investment.
As there is currently no freeway there (arguably portions of McLoughlin are a limited-access expressway), then you also need to compare the upgrade costs and environmental impacts of converting McLouglin into a freeway. And you’ll have to drum up sufficient local public support for it too.
Not very many city/county/metro politicians have yet been elected on a “convert McLoughlin into a freeway” platform.
LA Rapid bus/242,000 daily boardings to Milwaukie MAX/27,000 daily boardings.
Every bus element fares better than MAX at a fraction of the cost.
Bus system serves 369 miles – Milwaukie MAX serves 7.3 miles
Capital cost Bus system 350K/mile – Milwaukie MAX capitla cost $194 Million/mile
John –
If a company borrows money to build a productive plant that generates more than enough money to service the loan, you can call it a “Ponzi scheme” that is draining the company’s resources, but it isn’t. It’s a good investment. And if light rail (or any other urban renewal district infrastructure) generates enough additional tax paying development to pay for itself, then it is likewise a good investment.
Now if you want to claim that won’t happen, fine. But you haven’t provided any evidence to support that.
Dave-
There really aren’t many cities that have lost population. That is what was happening in Portland in the early 80’s. It was the tech boom of the late 80’s and 90’s fueled by Portland’s livability that turned that around.
By contrast, Detroit hollowed out, with people and investment moving to the suburbs. Now they are talking about tearing out whole neighborhoods to create open space and reduce the glut of empty houses.
BTW – I suggest you ignore both Cato and the Cascade Policy Institute. They are admitted ideologues who start with an answer and martial facts to support their conclusions. In short, their analysis isn’t worth debating.
John E: Capital cost Bus system 350K/mile – Milwaukie MAX capitla cost $194 Million/mile
When you discuss capital costs, you need to factor in the life of the system. Rail lines are expensive to build, but they last for many years. There are L tracks in Chicago that were built in 1892 and are still in use. Type 1 MAX cars date to 1985 and are still in use.
How do you determine capital cost/mile for a bus? Does that factor in the cost of highways?
[Moderator: Numerous personal attacks removed. You were warned, John. If you can’t make your arguments without treating your adversaries with explicit contempt, don’t post here. You are now on “comment vacation” for the rest of May. – Bob R.]
When I was using Detroit as a cautionary tale, I was referring to the crisis they’ve been in since they lost a big part of their tax base but still had massive amounts of obligations they still had to cover.
TriMet is already having financial problems, and adding a future cost for 20 years for a benefit now seems like a bad idea. I like expanding the system, but not at the expense of needing to cut even more service in the future.
Bob,
There were no personal attacks at all.
You are out of line.
[Moderator: For the record: “You are horrbibly.” [sic] “But you don’t seem to grasp that …” “Just like you have no understanding …” “Tall tales is what you got” The decision stands. See you in June.]
“TriMet is already having financial problems, and adding a future cost for 20 years for a benefit now seems like a bad idea.”
Won’t the benefits actually last longer than the future cost? What you seem to be arguing against is present costs for future benefits.
Bob,
Those weren’t personal attacks.
Like I said, YOU are out of line.
Having trouble facing the reality that TriMet and Light Rail are failing so miserably?
At least you and yours are on record deliberately ignoring every red flag.
Even the one Chris raised.
John, I completely support Bob that your comments were outside our rules of conduct.
[Moderator: Further comment disagreeing with being prohibited from commenting for the rest of this month removed. John, this is not your blog. Commenting here is a privilege. This is a moderated forum. Deal with it. Further violations will trigger longer prohibition. – Bob R.]
Your tone is pretty harsh and condescending. Everyone can see it except you.
Chris and Bob R. are pretty darn good at moderating this site. I don’t have a problem expressing contradictory points.
Ask yourself if you would conduct yourself as such (in this forum) as you would in real life face to face?
[Moderator: The supportive remark is appreciated but, as John cannot comment here for the time being, please nobody attempt to directly engage him in debates in which he cannot respond, although feel free to comment in general terms on any policy issues/factual matters previously raised. Thanks. – Bob R.]
Bob R. Says: (quoting JK) On average there are 1.57 people per car, so that is 2167 cars taken off of the road.
No, again you can’t do that. You’ve been shown time and time again that ODOT’s own meticulously-gathered local statistics show a much lower average per car. These statistics are gathered from accident reports, not preference surveys or a single nationwide value which conflates urban and rural areas.
JK: OK, lets redo it your way:
Metro projects ridership, in 2030, to be 22,000-27,000 “riders on the line per day”. Using the midpoint, 24,500 riders is 12,250 round trips. On average, only 1/3 of the light rail riders are drawn out of cars, so that is 4083 people taken out of cars. On average there are 1.3 people per car (portland), so that is 3141 cars taken off of the road. Spread over a three hour rush hour, that is 1047 cars per hour, about 58% of one lane of freeway (at 1800 cars/hr for a typical freeway)
Does that now make it a good deal? To remove about ½ of one freeway lane of traffic for about 10 times the cost of building another lane pair?
Bob R. Says: As there is currently no freeway there (arguably portions of McLoughlin are a limited-access expressway), then you also need to compare the upgrade costs and environmental impacts of converting McLouglin into a freeway.
JK: Since freeways cost $5-10 million per lane-mile to build and I used ten for the estimate, this shouldn’t affect anything. But if you want to assume a whole new freeway at the midpoint cost of $7.5 million per lane mile you get:
It is about 4.5 miles between the MLK-Grand and Milwaukee, so building 4 lanes, 4.5 miles, would cost between $90 and $180 million. Take the mid point at $135. That is still 1/10 the cost of the light rail (1/5 the local match). That would still leave $365 million, of the low ball local match estimate, for schools and social services or more road building. (I say schools & social services because that is part of where urban renewal money, a key local match fund source comes from – see portlandfacts.com/ur/priceofur.htm.)
The fact that light rail costs several times what a road costs for the same amount of transportation, is why I say it costs too much & does too little. Toys do little and are costly. That is why I call light rail a toy – it simply costs way too much and does too little.
Bob R. Says: And you’ll have to drum up sufficient local public support for it too.
JK: It is real hard to fight the millions of dollars the light rail profiteers are willing to spend to block roads to force people into their profit center. Here is a list of some local rail profiteers: portlandfacts.com/transit/whowantsrail.htm
Thanks
JK
JK wrote: Since freeways cost $5-10 million per lane-mile to build and I used ten for the estimate
JK, your numbers aren’t in line with recent, local, real-world costs.
Highway 217 is being widened right now by one lane for 1 1/4 miles. The budget is $37 million. That’s over $29 million per lane mile, and doesn’t feature any major changes to overpasses or interchanges.
Your value of ten is off by a factor of 290%, just there. (And your earlier estimates were off by over 45%, so now you’re off by 420%).
The ongoing I-5 Delta Park widening project has a $60 million budget for about 1.2 lane miles, or $50 million per mile. That’s 500% above your estimate.
While it may be feasible, in a rural environment with flat terrain, no seismic requirements, no embankments, no drainage, and no interchanges, to build a freeway for less money, that’s not the case in our area or in developed inner-suburban environments.
It is real hard to fight the millions of dollars the light rail profiteers are willing to spend to block roads to force people into their profit center.
I don’t see any million dollar ad campaigns against the CRC, or any of the other recent freeway widening projects, such as Delta Park (50% capacity widening southbound), I-205 (3 miles both directions, “permanent auxiliary lanes” according to ODOT) from Stafford to I-5, I-5 through Wilsonville, Highway 217, etc.
(And as I’ve stated numerous times in the past, but always seems to be necessary to re-state, I do support freeway widening in certain areas to remove bottlenecks and balance capacity. But I also don’t propose estimates nearly as low as yours when discussing such proposals.)
There is a very basic problem with comparing the cost of a “freeway” to the cost of any transit facility. Using an automobile requires more than a freeway, it also requires sufficient local street capacity and parking at both ends.
There are also substantial private investments and operating costs required too use an automobile. Those private operating costs alone amount to something around $.50 per vehicle/mile after you adjust for the gas tax which helps pay some of the cost of roads.
In addition, there are very significant number of people who do not have the ability to use an automobile unless they have someone else to drive for them. For them, the real comparison is taxi versus transit. There, the cost difference is even greater.
The idea that transit, whether light rail or bus, is more expensive than someone operating their own vehicle is, frankly, ludicrous. There are plenty of reasons to drive instead of taking the bus, but the public or private cost isn’t one of them.
How do you expand when you’re broke?
How come nobody ever asks this of Trimet?
STOP THE EXPANSION NOW!
Trimet isn’t broke or close to it. The question is how they should balance paying for current service with investments in the future.
Bob R. Says: JK wrote: Since freeways cost $5-10 million per lane-mile to build and I used ten for the estimate
JK, your numbers aren’t in line with recent, local, real-world costs.
The ongoing I-5 Delta Park widening project has a $60 million budget for about 1.2 lane miles, or $50 million per mile. That’s 500% above your estimate.
JK: Delta park is a bridge. Bridges cost more. Does your 1.2 mile number count both the added thru lane and the on ramp?
Bob R. Says: Highway 217 is being widened right now by one lane for 1 1/4 miles. The budget is $37 million. That’s over $29 million per lane mile, and doesn’t feature any major changes to overpasses or interchanges.
JK: Just a huge cut into the hill with retaining wall. Non of which would be required to Milwaullie.
Bob R. Says: While it may be feasible, in a rural environment with flat terrain, no seismic requirements, no embankments, no drainage, and no interchanges, to build a freeway for less money, that’s not the case in our area or in developed inner-suburban environments.
JK: But it is basically the case to Milwaulkie.
Bob R. Says: It is real hard to fight the millions of dollars the light rail profiteers are willing to spend to block roads to force people into their profit center.
I don’t see any million dollar ad campaigns against the CRC,
JK: The CRC is a primarily a light rail project. That is why they are proposing to spend $461,818 per current daily transit user and only $26,222 per current daily road user, a 20:1 ratio. And to build only the truly needed element – the bridge(s) – would only cost $6800-$10,500 per daily road user. (See nobridgetolls.com/lowcostplan.html) The rail portion costs 46 times what the needed part of the road costs (per today daily user)!
Any sane policy would look at the costs and decide the rail is too expensive.
(This is best guess): That is why they added rebuilding interchanges – to run up the cost to require high tolls which will be used as a credit for the local match.
Thanks
JK
Not a bridge, but a viaduct, to be accurate.
But that’s the point: You can’t just pick a cheap number for a freeway by looking at the cost of asphalt on bare, flat land, without including all the things that make freeways costly. Especially in an area like ours.
You couldn’t turn McLoughlin into a freeway, for example, from Holgate to Park Ave. (roughly paralleling the proposed MAX alignment) without building several interchanges, wiping out Milwaukie’s recently built streetscape/riverfront park, etc.
Have you talked to Milwaukie residents about turning McLoughlin into a freeway past downtown Milwaukie? I know you’ve advocated against putting light rail in downtown Milwaukie by distributing pamphlets at public meetings showing how visually unappealing you think the infrastructure is, but have you distributed similar literature showing the recently-installed crosswalks, sidewalks, and street trees being replaced with jersey barriers, on-ramps, and cloverleafs?
What do the Oak Grove people have to say about a freeway terminating at Park Ave., and what impact will it have on Kellog Lake, just to the north?
The CRC, dollar for dollar, is _not_ “primarily a light rail project”, as you characterize it. Measured in lane miles, passenger-miles, vehicles per hour, dollars spent, pounds of concrete, there’s simply no accuracy to what you assert. The CRC is overwhelmingly a massive freeway and interchange project, with light rail included as a “sweetener”. However, most transit advocates that I know (but not all) are quite opposed to the CRC proposal.
My original response to you still stands: There is no “multi million dollar” rail-funded opposition to freeway projects. Never has been.
Bob R. Says: My original response to you still stands: There is no “multi million dollar” rail-funded opposition to freeway projects. Never has been.
JK:
Sierra Klub
APTA
Center for Transportation Excrement
Thanks
JK
Bob R. Says: Not a bridge, but a viaduct, to be accurate.
JK: Still elevated and much more costly than ground level.
Bob R. Says: But that’s the point: You can’t just pick a cheap number for a freeway by looking at the cost of asphalt on bare, flat land, without including all the things that make freeways costly.
JK: But that is mostly flat land. Most of the way close to bare
Bob R. Says: Especially in an area like ours.
Bob R. Says: Yes, the terrible cost we pay for all the road haters in Portland.
Bob R. Says: You couldn’t turn McLoughlin into a freeway, for example, from Holgate to Park Ave. (roughly paralleling the proposed MAX alignment) without building several interchanges,
Bob R. Says: OK, so keep it like it is and add a pair of lanes. I only used the freeway cost as an upper limit of the cost of solving the congestion problem in a cost effective manner.
Thanks
JK
Of course this:
Bob R. Says: OK, so keep it like it is and add a pair of lanes. I only used the freeway cost as an upper limit of the cost of solving the congestion problem in a cost effective manner.
Should be this:
JK: OK, so keep it like it is and add a pair of lanes. I only used the freeway cost as an upper limit of the cost of solving the congestion problem in a cost effective manner.
Thanks
JK
Trimet is $27,000,000 in the hole.
I stand corrected, they are bankrupt.
Stop the expansion!
If you’re bankrupt you cannot “invest in the future”.
STOP THE EXPANSION NOW!
Sierra Klub [sic] APTA, Center for Transportation Excrement [who?]
That’s your answer? Misspelled, tiny, and fictional organizations?
Seriously, when has “APTA” ever been a multi-million dollar anything?
Yes, the terrible cost we pay for all the road haters in Portland.
That’s way out of line. I disagree with you about costs, and explicitly state that I’m in favor of freeway expansion in certain cases but view the costs differently, and you respond with “freeway haters”.
Can we please have a more serious, fact-based opposition to light rail, please, without all the insults? It will do the community a lot of good to have serious skepticism, not incomprehensible insults.
Al, $27M is a small percentage of TriMet’s operating budget. It’s serious, and it has resulted in cutbacks, and I agree with Chris and others that proposed funding mechanisms for future expansion (such as bonding payroll tax revenue for Milwaukie construction) are misguided, but having a budget shortfall and making cutbacks is not nearly the same thing as bankruptcy.
If you want to see what a bankrupt government looks like, look at Argentina or Orange County, CA in the 90’s.
If you want to see what a bankrupt government looks like, look at Argentina or Orange County, CA in the 90’s.
Or, for a current day version, Greece, and on the brink Portugal and California would be an examples. Or Detroit or San Diego. Or, well… A $27 million shortfall would be an improvement to any of them.
Bob R. Says: Sierra Klub [sic]
JK: Just a little added political statement. But you knew that.
Bob R. Says: Center for Transportation Excrement [who?]
JK: Aw, come on! Its just another little political statement about the quality of the stuff coming out of this group:
CFTE – Center for Transportation Excellence
Welcome to the Center for Transportation Excellence, a non-partisan policy research center created to serve the needs of communities and transportation …
cfte.org/
Bob R. Says: That’s your answer? Misspelled, tiny, and fictional organizations?
JK: A bit of levity about some groups that spend buko bucks against cars and promote costly transit choices. In one case probably out of ignorance and the other probably for profit.
Bob R. Says: …and explicitly state that I’m in favor of freeway expansion in certain cases but view the costs differently, and you respond with “freeway haters”.
JK: Does this mean you favor freeway expansion here:
1) I5 in North Portland
2) I5 between the marquem and Rose Quarter?
3) I84 from I-5 to I-205
If not, where?
Thanks
JK
“freeways cost $5-10 million per lane-mile”
“freeway expansion here:
1) I5 in North Portland
2) I5 between the marquem and Rose Quarter?
3) I84 from I-5 to I-205”
I don’t think you could expand any of those freeways for anything remotely close to $10 million per mile. This seems to be an ideological argument about highways versus transit that has nothing to do with practical transportation solutions for people in Portland.
This is not an ideological issue for everyone. There are a whole bunch of alternative transportation advocates who support a massive investment to put I5 in a tunnel from the Marquam on the west bank through the central eastside and the rose quarter. I don’t agree with them, but they are certainly looking for solutions, not imposing their ideological preference for transit.
For the record:
1) I5 in North Portland
I support the southbound Delta Park widening currently underway. Others, including Lenny, have pointed out the downsides of this project, such as the effective removal of the add-lane for southbound trucks, but I do believe the removal of a key bottleneck in this area is worthwhile.
2) I5 between the marquem and Rose Quarter?
I do support some means of fixing the problems caused by having only two through-lanes and lanes that start/end abruptly. Three through lanes and a continuous merge/ramp access lane would do a lot for this. But it would require replacement of nearly every overpass and ramp, including, near as I can tell, the approaches to the Fremont bridge. The price tag will be in CRC territory and likely exceed it.
And a massive CRC would overwhelm such improvements, too. If anything, I-5 and the interchanges through the Rose Quarter should be improved first. The CRC project will just unbalance the system further, by increasing capacity at the edges that the center of the network can’t handle.
Whether this is accomplished via a tunnel, a complete re-route, a fix-in-place, or some other means, I’d have to see specific proposals.
3) I84 from I-5 to I-205
No, not really. Fixing I-5 and the interchange with I-84 itself would do a lot to improve the situation on I-84 without widening the freeway itself further.
I would definitely support stitching together some of the roads which were forced to terminate when I-84 was constructed, reconnecting neighborhoods and supporting the local street grid better. For example, an overpass allowing NE 7th Ave. to cross I-84. Soon the eastside Burnside-Couch project will allow north-south traffic to proceed much more easily and a continuous 7th Ave. is much more of a possibility.
Also for the record, full disclosure: I entered a video contest sponsored by APTA and our team won. I gave the prizes (an iPod Touch and a 1yr transit pass) to other team members but kept a $25 gift card for myself.
If you want to see what a bankrupt government looks like, look at Argentina or Orange County, CA in the 90’s.
~~~>Or look at 100,000,000 American households who don’t have the luxury of laying off family members.
Or, for a current day version, Greece, and on the brink Portugal and California would be an examples. Or Detroit or San Diego.
~~~>Don’t y’all get to high and mighty, the fat lady ain’t sung yet!
Further to the point, ladies and gentlemen, is that the so called “recession” might have complicated Trimet’s mess, (created by the policy of “take any money we can, who cares about operating funds later”), attitude, but Trimet had plans to come after union members long before.
STOP THE EXPANSION!
Furtermore, I have nothing but respect for the Greeks, who have full understanding that the “crisis” was created by the elite bankers, who now want the working classes to pay for it.
Hell if any of the elite intends to pay anything on this, they are still getting their fat cat salaries and bonuses and golden parachutes.
American’s in a state of perpetual fog, just glibly go about their business, as if “there is nothing we can do”.
With that attitude we can expect slavery and discrimination all to become part of our culture again.
All the gains made by labor over the last 50 years are being whittled away,the elite are masters of using “class envy” to divide the public between itself.
Has anybody read the news?
Banks have made record profits this year as Americans sit un(der)employed their houses being take away.Gas companies don’t know what to do with all the money they have. Hey, its the free market right?
Just Saying Says:
“freeways cost $5-10 million per lane-mile”
“freeway expansion here:
1) I5 in North Portland
2) I5 between the marquem and Rose Quarter?
3) I84 from I-5 to I-205”
I don’t think you could expand any of those freeways for anything remotely close to $10 million per mile.
JK: Well, duhhh. I used the $5-10 million/lane-mile for Portland-Milwaulkie since that number is for just road building on, relatively flat, pre-owned land, which, as far as I know approximates the situation there. FYI: The cost I have for elevated roads is $15-30 million/lane mile. (Which appears in the ballpark as the southbound CRC bridge at 6 lanes, about 0.8 miles for $315 million is $65 million/lane-mile for a real bridge.)
Just Saying Says: This seems to be an ideological argument about highways versus transit that has nothing to do with practical transportation solutions for people in Portland.
JK: Real simple. Just answer these questions:
Which is,
fastest
door to door
no waiting
no walking a few blocks after dark, in sometimes, a bad neighborhood
Has minimal exposure to criminals
Lowest real cost
Lowest energy usage with the new Federal mandate.
Powered entirely by gasolene instead of partly by polluting coal.
Just Saying Says: There are a whole bunch of alternative transportation advocates who support a massive investment to put I5 in a tunnel from the Marquam on the west bank through the central eastside and the rose quarter.
JK: Why do I suspect that the condo weasels (thanks Jack) are behind that idea to free up land for another North Macadam style raid on our tax money.
Thanks
JK
“since that number is for just road building on, relatively flat, pre-owned land, which, as far as I know approximates the situation there”
As I remember, that isn’t the situation, even on McLoughlin. But it certainly is not the case on the highways you actually mentioned.
“I suspect that the condo weasels”
No doubt. There are lots of different reasons people support specific transportation investments. Freeways are beloved of land speculators when they provide better opportunities for development of the land they own. Any investment is going to have construction companies and workers with a vested interest in the project. They are going to advocate for solutions that fit their business. That is the way democracy works and sometimes it produces bad results as we have seen with the CRC.
But I mentioned specifically “alternative transportation advocates”, most of whom have no financial stake in the outcome. Their support of new roads is practical, not mercenary nor ideological.
Just Saying Says: “since that number is for just road building on, relatively flat, pre-owned land, which, as far as I know approximates the situation there”
As I remember, that isn’t the situation, even on McLoughlin. But it certainly is not the case on the highways you actually mentioned.
JK: Who ever said it was the case for those other highways? NOT ME! That was you jumping to a conclusion.
Just Saying Says: Freeways are beloved of land speculators when they provide better opportunities for development of the land they own.
JK: You have that backwards. Developers only need any of the many existing roads. Look around you – most developments are off of ordinary roads, not new freeways.
Just Saying Says: That is the way democracy works and sometimes it produces bad results as we have seen with the CRC.
JK: Huh?? The CRC has produced NO RESULTS, only a DEIS that proposes spending $3 billion to solve a $3/4 billion dollar problem. However, they have successfully spent over $50 million on politically connected consultants.
Just Saying Says: But I mentioned specifically “alternative transportation advocates”, most of whom have no financial stake in the outcome. Their support of new roads is practical, not mercenary nor ideological.
JK:
APTA financed by the transit industry.
Sierra Club (a multi-national, multi million dollar corp.)
These supporters of light rail: portlandfacts.com/transit/whowantsrail.htm
Thanks
JK
“Who ever said it was the case for those other highways? NOT ME!”
Who said you said it? NOT ME!
“Their support of new roads is practical, not mercenary nor ideological.
JK:
APTA financed by the transit industry.
Sierra Club (a multi-national, multi million dollar corp.)”
As far as I can tell, neither one is supporting the tunnel. So why don’t you address the motivations of the “alternative transportation advocates” that are?
BTW – as far as I know, the Sierra Club is not incorporated, its a membership organization.
Just Saying Says: “Who ever said it was the case for those other highways? NOT ME!”
Who said you said it? NOT ME!
JK: Yes you did:
As I remember, that isn’t the situation, even on McLoughlin. But it certainly is not the case on the highways you actually mentioned.
You were talking about the $10 million/lane-mile and saying it was not the case for the highways I mentioned. Of course it wasn’t,. $10 million/lane-mile was in a different posting than the highway list and were not related. You answered as if they were related and accused me of being wrong.
Thanks
JK
Jim –
Here is what I said and you quoted:
“I don’t think you could expand any of those freeways for anything remotely close to $10 million per mile. ”
You said and I quoted:
“since that number is for just road building on, relatively flat, pre-owned land, which, as far as I know approximates the situation there.”
I said:
“As I remember, that isn’t the situation, even on McLoughlin. But it certainly is not the case on the highways you actually mentioned. ”
Nothing I said even suggested that your “average cost” applied to those other freeways, any more than it applied to McLoughlin. In fact, it applies to none of them. Which raises the question of why you keep repeating it. The answer, of course, is that it supports your pre-conceived ideological transportation preference.
Let’s avoid venturing into personal territory.
I accept Just Saying’s assessment of the order of who said what, when, but ultimately it’s not relevant who said what compared to what things would actually cost.
The 99E corridor is fraught with various difficulties, some of which are not immediately apparent to the casual observer, which (in my opinion) would preclude $10m/mile lane expansion, no matter who says it. :-)
“ultimately it’s not relevant who said what compared to what things would actually cost.”
While I agree with that, I don’t think it is wholly irrelevant when a comment is taken out of context.
There is a considerable difference between an abstract, ideological discussion of which is better, transit or highways, and a discussion of what is appropriate in a specific instance. There is nothing wrong with an ideological argument, which I think is what Jim is making. But it shouldn’t be allowed to get confused with a discussion of the merits of specific practical alternatives. The “average” cost of a freeway mile or transit trip is wholly irrelevant to the latter.
JK: You have that backwards. Developers only need any of the many existing roads. Look around you – most developments are off of ordinary roads, not new freeways.
Really? What new freeways has this region seen in the past 30 years? I-205 would be about it. Are you going to argue that the I-205 corridor didn’t experience massive growth once I-205 was completed? Are you ignoring the new freeway to Damascus that the region is looking at building?
Who do you think is pushing for the freeway for the Sunrise Corridor? Washington County residents? Portland residents? The population that doesn’t live there yet?
Bob R. Says: JK, your numbers aren’t in line with recent, local, real-world costs.
Highway 217 is being widened right now by one lane for 1 1/4 miles. The budget is $37 million. That’s over $29 million per lane mile, and doesn’t feature any major changes to overpasses or interchanges.
JK: Lets look at an upper limit.
The cost of a bridge between Portland and Milwauke.
Using the CRAC cost of $65 million/lane-mile and 4.5 miles of 4 lanes we get $1.17 Billion.
It appears cheaper to build a CRC style bridge from Portland to Milwaulkie than the toy train (so called since it costs too much & does too little.)
Thanks
JK
One of the big-ticket items for Milwaukie light rail is a bridge over the Willamette, so in a way you’re criticizing Milwaukie light rail for being expensive while substituting a bridge for a bridge.
(The new bridge will also serve multiple bus routes, the streetcar, and bikes/peds, to it’s also unfair to ascribe the entire cost simply to Milwaukie-bound rail riders.)
Although the CRC does have some property acquisition costs, the Milwaukie line is close-in and widening McLoughlin (or building a bridge) would also have added property acquisition costs your figure doesn’t include.
So no, I don’t think that’s a proper comparison at all.
Bob R.: (The new bridge will also serve multiple bus routes, the streetcar, and bikes/peds, to it’s also unfair to ascribe the entire cost simply to Milwaukie-bound rail riders.)
… and emergency vehicles.
And all of the freight and commerce that can use the new rail bridge.
Oh, NO, you say, NO freight, NO commercial vehicles. Oh, I see LRT is more important than commerce.
And of course we don’t heed those 1000 stinkin family wage jobs that are going to be displaced by the light rail. (The only good job is a government job!)
Oh, I see LRT is more important than commerce.
You seem to be of the opinion that transit riders have no significant role in the commerce of our region. I’ll leave you to that opinion.
Here’s my response with a by-the-numbers approach:
Number of automobile lanes across Willamette in the downtown area: 41
(Does not include Sellwood or St. Johns bridges).
Number of automobile-only lanes on bridges which prohibit peds or bicycles: 16
Number of heavy rail tracks: 2
Number of transit-only lanes: 2
Number of dedicated bike/ped lanes (beyond sidewalks): 2 bidirectional
So, currently, auto lanes outnumber transit lanes by over 20:1. Exclusive auto lanes (no bikes, no peds allowed) outnumber mixed bike/ped lanes by 8:1.
Even with a new transit/bike/ped/emergency bridge, auto lanes will still outnumber transit by over 10:1, prohibited lanes (no bikes, no peds allowed) will still outnumber mixed ped/bike lanes by 4:1.
Looks like there is indeed exclusivity out there, but it’s not transit trumping autos, and it’s not bikes/peds trumping autos.
Bob: I am sure autos outnumber transit, bikes, or anything else by more then 20:1
The demand just does not exist for a transit exclusive bridge. The only thing that may come close is bicycle traffic across the hawthorne bridge, but that traffic is already well accommodated. Once the bicycle fad fizzles out in a few years, we will probably see that demand drop off almost completely.
Combine that with the fact that the endless urban renewal schemes that have propped up our failing downtown district for many decades are beginning to run dry, and you start to see that there isn’t any reason to build ANY more bridges downtown.
The best investments would be to maintain and/or upgrade what we have.
I am sure autos outnumber transit, bikes, or anything else by more then 20:1
No, not in the downtown area. Transit/bike/ped mode share is quite high.
Once the bicycle fad fizzles out
And your evidence that this is a “fad” is? It may seem that we’ve been getting a lot of out-of-town press about bicycling and Portland lately, but Portland has been having this “fad” for decades now, even with previously only relatively limited infrastructure investment.
The only thing that may come close is bicycle traffic across the hawthorne bridge, but that traffic is already well accommodated.
If by “well accommodated” you mean “at capacity”, I’d agree. That’s why we need more places for bikes/peds to cross conveniently.
The split between auto and non-auto trips to downtown Portland is about 50-50. There are about 50,000 parking spaces downtown and 150,000 jobs.
Of course, not all those folks are working at the same time. They also aren’t the only people who need parking. There is a certain unreality to the argument for more auto capacity to serve downtown.
There are about 50,000 parking spaces downtown and 150,000 jobs.
JK: Care to cite source for that claim. Seems a bit high to me.
Thanks
JK
150k sounds a bit high to me. Must all be “planning” and other government employment.
Asking for source of asserted job/parking numbers: Entirely appropriate.
Being generally derisive/dismissive of public employees: Not appropriate.
Keep it factual.
“I am sure autos outnumber transit, bikes, or anything else by more then 20:1”
Anthony –
Tell you what, I’ll provide my sources when you provide yours.
The numbers were taken from the Household Activity Survey. They are probably out of date in the current economy, but they clearly show your beliefs about downtown Portland to be ill-founded.
Just Saying Says:
Just Saying Says: The split between auto and non-auto trips to downtown Portland is about 50-50. There are about 50,000 parking spaces downtown and 150,000 jobs.
JK:
1. I am still waiting for your source on your claim.
2. I did find this slightly different number:
Downtown Portland Employees,2008 total: 82,994
I wil even give you the source without hassel: Page 3 of 2008, Downtown Portland Business Census
& Survey http://www.portlandalliance.com/pdf/2008census.pdf
Just Saying Says: There is a certain unreality to the argument for more auto capacity to serve downtown.
JK: Sure, just let people waste almost half of their commute time taking transit instead of driving. (21.6 min compared to 38.2 on transit, Average in Portland. See portlandfacts.com/commutechart.html)
.
Of course outside of Portland, the time is 22.7 min by car. So suburban car commuters don’ t have significantly longer commute times than city dwellers. But bus commuters DO at 46.3 min.
Thanks
JK
JK says: I am still waiting for your source on your claim.
JK, we’re still waiting in the other thread for your source about your assertion (which runs contrary to press accounts and my own memory) that Interstate MAX’s opening was delayed because of costs. Care to share?
Sure, just let people waste almost half of their commute time taking transit instead of driving.
Time on transit isn’t “wasted”, JK. You can read the morning paper, or a book, or text a remote friend, or catch up with Facebook (OK, that’s a waste of time) — activities which are unsafe and unlawful to do while driving. Although getting to your destination sooner definitely has merit, transit offers opportunities for productivity which driving does not.
Fortunately, our region offers opportunities for multiple modes of transport, not just one.
So suburban car commuters don’ t have significantly longer commute times than city dwellers.
Wait, I thought one of your primary theses was that lower-density areas offered shorter commutes than higher-density areas. Now the best you can offer is that they’re not “significantly longer”?
Oh, and JK said “I am still waiting for your source on your claim” without also chiding Anthony for not providing a source for Anthony’s earlier claim, which Just Saying had requested. A little consistency, please.
I shouldn’t chide JK too much, because he did incidentally provide us with a source which answers Anthony’s earlier assertion (yes, we have ventured far, far off topic) that “I am sure autos outnumber transit, bikes, or anything else by more then 20:1”.
Because Page 11 of JK’s referenced source (PDF) has a nice table which lays it all out:
How Downtown Employees Get to Work:
Drive alone 37%
Max/Bus 43%
Bike 6%
Carpool 8%
Walk 5%
Streetcar 1%
So, “Drive alone” plus “Carpool” is 45%, while all other modes constitute 55%. So not only is the “20:1” that Anthony makes completely inaccurate in magnitude, it’s not even correct in orientation. Transit/bike/ped modes outnumber private autos.
Thanks for the source, JK. That does a lot to settle the issue of the utility of a transit/bike/ped bridge.
Thanks for the source, JK. That does a lot to settle the issue of the utility of a transit/bike/ped bridge.
OF course you are assuming that all (many) of those come from the south. What % of that bus/max come from the south?
Thanks
JK
[Moderator: Italics added for clarity. – Bob R.]
OF course you are assuming
Nope.
I’m a little tired of all this goalpost-moving, JK.
We’ve gone from an assertion of “20:1” against transit/bike/ped to, in fact, transit/bike/ped being in the lead (based on your own source!), and now you want it broken down by subarea.
How about you tell us your source for the contrary-to-published-reports Interstate MAX assertion? After all, we did ask your first.
Jim –
I would guess the difference in numbers is the difference in the definition of “downtown”. I am not willing to go back and check to see since I think your sources numbers support my conclusion just as well:
“There is a certain unreality to the argument for more auto capacity to serve downtown. “
Bob R. How about you tell us your source for the contrary-to-published-reports Interstate MAX assertion? After all, we did ask your first.
Done. See the thread.
Thanks
JK
Saw thread. Not a source for your assertion. Proves opposite point. Thanks.
Saw thread. Not a source for your assertion. Proves opposite point.
JK: Wrong. Does NOT prove opposite point, just is weak proof.
Thanks
JK
Wrong.
Your original assertion: Line opening “delayed” due to cost.
Article statement: Line to open early (it did) because it was under-budget (it was).
As I said in the other thread, words mean things.
Well, it appears that the Milwaukie Line has lost its opponent, at least for the time being–Alley will not be the GOP nominee; ex-Trail Blazer Chris Dudley will.
Although he’s a longshot to win, one hopes Duds is better at politics than he is at free-throw shooting. :)
Fred Nussbaum here. I hate blogs, because I don’t want to take the time to wade through the BS to find the tiny pearls of wisdom. I’ve certainly known about Portland Transport, but have mostly avoided the long-winded discussions. However, tonight I just happened to Google myself and found my name splattered all over this blog, with unidentifiable people interpreting what I might have said to the TriMet board, conjecturing how I might react, etc.
First of all, I NO LONGER represent AORTA in any way. My comments were on my own behalf, based on my experience as a transportation planner at TriMet and decades of involvement in transit and rail issues in this state. I am generally a supporter of rail projects, because rail is a superior technology, can be more cost-effective over the long run, has a more benign impact on the environment and urban livability. I have not supported every rail project in this region for various reasons that would take too long to explain here. My point to the TriMet board was that it was unconscionable at this point in time to tie up scarce operating funds into capital projects we can’t afford to fully operate, while cutting bus service, the backbone of TriMet’s transit system. What John E. missed was that I told the TriMet that I am a strong supporter of light rail to Milwaukie and that I think it should have been built before the Green Line (which I think is NOT cost-effective south of Gateway). However, given TriMet’s current fiscal crisis the Milwaukie project should be DEFERRED (not scrapped) until tax revenues rebound. I continued that light rail system cannot be successful without a healthy bus network to feed and supplement it, so cannibalizing the bus service to continue to expand the light rail network makes no sense. It also is discriminatory, since a higher proportion of bus riders are transit dependents (i.e. lower income people, who are getting double- and triple-whammied by the economic crisis).
In the future, if you are going to quote or interpret me, check it out with me first. I’m in the phone book.
This line is just too expensive at well over a $100 million per mile and the daily boardings probably exceed $5 dollars per boarding.
Thanks
JK
Fred Nussbaum: However, given TriMet’s current fiscal crisis the Milwaukie project should be DEFERRED (not scrapped) until tax revenues rebound.
JK: Thanks for essentially confirming what John Charles relayed about your comments to the TriMet board. (But I can’t see how John E missed the essence of your position. Which is TriMet must halt the Milwaukie LR project. )
But, as you say “given TriMet’s current fiscal crisis the Milwaukie project should be DEFERRED”
and “cannibalizing the bus service to continue to expand the light rail network makes no sense.”
That is the bottom line. Your clarification is actually a strong case against the whole project.
Thanks
JK
JK: defer = DELAY. In a healthy fiscal environment light rail to Milwaukie should be pursued vigorously. An added benefit of delay is, that, since many of us have problems with some key design proposals, it would give them time to get it right, minimally: 1) NO new bridge across the Willamette, but connecting with the rest of the MAX system at the Rose Quarter and the bus system at each of the eastside bridgeheads and 2)scrap the huge park and rides for much better local bus feeder service and pedestrian access.
The Caruthers bridge will, supposedly, improve the operational efficiency of the bus system by giving deadheading busses a more direct route from the transit mall to the Center Street garage. Every minute a bus spends deadheading rather than in revenue service is money thrown out the window….
Fred Says: JK: defer = DELAY.
JK: Lets take a step back:
* What problem are we trying to solve?
* What is the cheapest solution?
* What solution provides the fastest transportation from origin to destination.
* What solution is most convenient?
Thanks
JK