CRC Light Rail to Get Stand Alone Vote


Some interesting politics in Clark County played out today as the C-Tran board, over the objections of the City of Vancouver, decided to place two measures on the ballot next year, one for existing bus service and one specifically for light rail.

Vancouver Mayor Tim Leavitt had argued for one combined ballot measure.

,

27 responses to “CRC Light Rail to Get Stand Alone Vote”

  1. It wasn’t quite clear from the Columbian article–but is this simply a funding bill, or a referendum on LRT itself?

    And what if it were to fail–would alternate funding be available? Would a busway (possibly designed for rail use in the future should it be needed or desired) become an option? Or would this essentially kill the CRC for the forseeable future–assuming the Portland side sticks to a position of “no rail, no bridge”?

  2. It’s a funding measure, and according to some press accounts, failure would still potentially leave a more complex option to draw a smaller district to support LRT and put it out for another vote.

  3. Again reading the tea leaves, it appears as though the Vancouver politicos fear that LRT will not pass on its own. Leavitt wants to tie it to the bus ops levy in order to try and secure passage; whereas the C-Tran board believes that its an anchor too large for the boat which would sink them both if not separated.

    Kinda like the “tax cuts for the rich” debate in DC right now… many who support it seem to have a lack of faith that it would pass as a standalone measure, so wish to tie it to middle-class tax relief.

  4. Hmm not sure how I feel about this. I don’t want C-Tran to sink but do want MAX in the couve (my home). In the comments (which are mostly hate filed vitriol) someone posted an idea that if it fails to be incorporated into the C-Tran budget operations could be put to just City of Vancouver residents and the city could manage it since it’s just to Clark College. This actually makes some sense to me.

    Also someone noted that ending at Clark College makes for a pretty lame park and ride location. Most people will have to get on I5 to get to the train. Factor in parking and walking and the trip it looks to be MUCH longer to the Rose Qtr than driving. I know there are other benefits and I would do it but I think there are better locations for a park and ride.

    Lastly, I can’t stand all the “crime train”, “north Portland” coded racism. When can we get past this crap?

  5. Ken brings up an interesting point, which prompts a question:

    Does TriMet pay for C-Tran operations within TriMet service boundaries?

    If not, is it reasonable to insist that C-Tran pair for MAX operations north of the river?

  6. Gulp.

    Light rail is so screwed.

    [i]Lastly, I can’t stand all the “crime train”, “north Portland” coded racism. When can we get past this crap? [/i]

    As we say on our teenage-styled internet forums, Quoted For Truth.

  7. Chris Smith Says: It’s a funding measure, and according to some press accounts, failure would still potentially leave a more complex option to draw a smaller district to support LRT and put it out for another vote.
    JK: The smaller district option means a higher tax rate, since only those who vote can be taxed and it cannot appear on the ballot before 2012 because of a limitation placed in the legislation reportedly to protect another tax measure expected by then..

    The funding is for operations ONLY. They believe that the feds will pay 100% of the construction. In fact the C-Tran’s CRC LPA approval resolution contains a stipulation that they will NOT pay any of the construction cost (among many other stipulations). And the City of Vancouver similary expects to NOT pay a cent, but I was told that is not in the resolution.

    The actual operation will be by Trimet.

    Ken Says: Also someone noted that ending at Clark College makes for a pretty lame park and ride location. Most people will have to get on I5 to get to the train. Factor in parking and walking and the trip it looks to be MUCH longer to the Rose Qtr than driving.
    JK: Then add in the bus scheduled travel time of 15 min from downtown to downtown, while the rail is 30 min from the Expo center to downtown.

    EngineerScotty Says: Does TriMet pay for C-Tran operations within TriMet service boundaries?
    JK: the issue is that there will only be a couple miles of rail in Vancouver, so it makes little sense for C-Tran drivers to take over at the state line or for C-Tran to set up it own maintenance facilities.

    Thanks
    JK

  8. I keep hearing that the Federal government requires light rail, or high capacity transit or transit in order to get Federal funding for the bridge project.

    I have also heard that there is NO such requirement.

    Can anyone point to government documents that shed light on this argument?

    Thanks
    JK

  9. JK: Then add in the bus scheduled travel time of 15 min from downtown to downtown, while the rail is 30 min from the Expo center to downtown.

    15 minutes? Maybe at two in the morning, JK. You should go look at I-5 any time after 3:00 pm.

  10. Transit critics often complain that TriMet operates a downtown-centric system. (I’m setting aside the validity or non-validity of that argument for now.)

    But you can’t on the one hand criticize a supposedly downtown-centric system by then comparing a corridor service (Interstate MAX) to a downtown-to-downtown express service that skips over entire communities.

    Significant numbers of people (including from Vancouver) live and work in the Interstate Ave. corridor or along transit routes that intersect with it. It’s why the Interstate & Lombard station is one of the busiest in the system — and that has very little to do with downtowns.

    The C-Tran #105 express is indeed scheduled for 15 minutes at morning peak, from downtown Vancouver to 5th and Alder in Downtown Portland. Which is terrific if you want downtown-to-downtown service, but not so terrific if you need to get to somewhere on the peninsula, down to Swan Island, or stop anywhere in the Interstate Ave. / I-5 corridor.

    There’s no reason agencies can’t operate express buses if they want to operate them. But it’s a completely different kind of service and doesn’t serve the large ridership that a corridor transit service can serve, and it is inappropriate to treat the two as equivalent as JK has done in his off-hand comparison.

  11. PS… C-Tran #105 evening peak northbound is scheduled at about 23 minutes, downtown-to-downtown. That may change if the CRC mega-bridge gets built, but morning southbound may suffer as the bottleneck shifts south.

  12. Bob: it is inappropriate to treat the two as equivalent as JK has done in his off-hand comparison.
    JK: Sorry, it is an appropriate comparison as
    1. the CRC SDEIS gives times from downtown to downtown.
    2. The current downtown Portland express bus users are potential candidates to use LRT, although some express buses will be kept.

    Jeff F Says: 15 minutes? Maybe at two in the morning, JK.
    JK: I quoted the AM commute hour time from the C-Tran schedule. I also verified that they generally keep the schedule. see: http://www.nolightrail.com/

    Jeff F Says: You should go look at I-5 any time after 3:00 pm.
    JK: You should actually go look at I-5 – it has an HOV lane. The buses use it!

    Thanks
    JK

  13. 1. the CRC SDEIS gives times from downtown to downtown.

    If that’s the only thing the CRC is looking at when discussing transit, then it’s every bit as flawed of a comparison as you’re doing.

    People in Clark County work all over Portland, especially within the bridge influence area. Downtown-to-downtown leaves large swaths of potential transit users out of the analysis. (Sort of like the CRC’s flawed exclusion of consideration of a local arterial bridge or improvements to the rail bridge.)

    2. The current downtown Portland express bus users are potential candidates to use LRT, although some express buses will be kept.

    They are “potential candidates”. So are the many other “potential candidates” who don’t currently ride an express because it doesn’t go near where they need/want to go.

  14. Or, may get better due to curing ONE of the several bottlenecks.

    Nope, it will just remove a natural traffic metering system and dump more cars into central I-5 and I-405, which even if you advocate significant expansion to those core freeways (I’ve always advocated bottleneck removal, but BEFORE CRC expansion), you’ve got a price tag that is MULTIPLES of the CRC cost, and no real plan in place on what to build or how to pay for it.

    If people are having sticker shock over the CRC, just wait until they see what it would cost to widen central I-5 and replace nearly every one of the dozens of overpass and ramps across it, which are the current limiting factor.

    And if a widened CRC _doesn’t_ dump more traffic faster into the central city, then the claims of more capacity across the river being essential were bunk from the beginning.

    Adding capacity away from the center of a network just puts more pressure on the center. Few people want to address the center (because of very, very high costs and lots of disruption), so instead we’re spreading the money around but only making the problem worse.

  15. If people are having sticker shock over the CRC, just wait until they see what it would cost to widen central I-5 and replace nearly every one of the dozens of overpass and ramps across it, which are the current limiting factor.

    Bob, I honestly think a new lane could be added—both north and south—in the Rose Quarter area without reconstructing the viaducts. Or at least without major reconstruction. I am not quite sure if the height requirements would be there in every case, but there is enough width for one more lane. The height on the Weidler viaduct S. bound could be a problem.

    Take a look next time you go through there.

  16. Take a look at the locations of the pylons supporting the viaducts. If the freeway were widened through Rose Quarter, not only would the viaducts need to be rebuilt — including under Broadway/Weidler/Williams — but portions of the freeway itself are elevated from the Fremont Bridge to I-5. Adding a couple of lanes would be a massive project — unless you simply get rid of the shoulders, which I doubt would meet safety standards.

  17. Douglas is right… take a look at the support structures and where the lanes and shoulders line up as you drive through central I-5 and you’ll see what i mean about nearly everything needing to be rebuilt in some way.

  18. There was a “I-5: I-84 to I-405 Final Report” done and the concepts in it did include re-doing the Broadway/Weidler-area street network and overpasses. (I have a copy of it but its 116 MB because the pages are all rasterized instead of e.g. text being stored as text.)

  19. I tried to post this 3 times. How come no one approved it?

    What I am trying to say is that BRT would be the best idea, upon second thought. Just dedicate a lane to BRT, have it replace the 105 and voila, we have a MAX replacement! Saves us a half billion right there. Just the cost of a ramp to Jantzen Beach, Expo Center to connect with MAX and… that will cost quite a bit… BUT CHEAPER THAN MAX AND DON’T YOU FORGET IT! ;)

  20. “Douglas is right”

    Didn’t I say “Rose Quarter.” If I couldn’t see the pylons under the interchange ramps, which are right over the guard rail, I shouldn’t be driving. True, that would be a MUCH LARGER CHALLENGE, but I think the choke point is actually more in the Rose Quarter.

    (I should probably get out of the house on Saturdays….still, I looked at the walkways on the I-5 bridges this morning. Plenty of room there, even now since no one was using them.)

  21. Didn’t I say “Rose Quarter.”

    Yes, and I was talking about the Rose Quarter as well. So was Douglas.

    Broadway/Weidler are the northern boundary of the Rose Quarter, I-5 the eastern boundary, and Holladay the southern.

  22. Light Rail will never pass with C-Tran area voters.

    If it were put to vote neither would Milwaukie Light Rail be approved by TriMet area voters.
    That’s why a vote is avoided.

    But I’ll predict again as I said a couple months ago, milwaukie Light Raill will not get built.

  23. Yes, and I was talking about the Rose Quarter as well. So was Douglas.

    It’s OK….I have a plan….Some of those ramps could be eliminated entirely. And access to the river could be obtained….while allowing the freeway to remain there. Other cities have done similar things.

    But that’s all another subject….(yawn) for another time…

  24. Jeff F Says: You should go look at I-5 any time after 3:00 pm.

    JK: You should actually go look at I-5 – it has an HOV lane. The buses use it!

    I commuted out I-5 to North Portland for a long time, JK, so I don’t have to make a special trip for observation: years of real-time experience.

Leave a Reply to Cameron Johnson Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *