This guest post is by Portland Transport reader dan w. We are always happy to publish well-written, topical guest posts; contact myself, Chris, or Bob if you are interested.–ES
The idea of putting MAX underground through downtown Portland has been around for some time, and I’ve had a concept for a MAX subway that, with the help of an ancient version of CorelDraw, I finally sketched out recently. It’s inspired in part by a basic concept I vaguely remember from an long-ago Tribune or Oregonian article (it could have been something proposed by Jim Howell’s group but I’m not sure) that I’ve fleshed out in my head over the years.
In addition to hopefully alleviating the speed and capacity constraints of the current system, my concept has all lines serving the same small group of “core” stations (e.g., Union Station, PSU) and can allow for buses to share the tunnel with trains a la Seattle. Of course, the current fiscal climate will likely relegate underground MAX to “pipe dream” status for decades to come (maybe Subway Sandwiches can sponsor the stations? [dodges rotten tomatoes])
Click on the map for a higher-resolution version.
67 responses to “Guest Post: A proposal for a downtown rail tunnel”
I always pictured the yellow line continuing on the bus mall, and the red line continuing on the existing max line. It seems like we would at least have one line running on each existing route. Obviously, it would be the less popular routes that would still be using 2-car trains. I’m sure by the time we get a downtown tunnel, there will be several more max lines.
Moderator: I made a minor post-publication change to the article, as some of the original content was being treated as markup and screwing up the site formatting (specifically the brackets around “dodges rotten tomatoes”).
I have often thought about this.
However, I think there is value in having MAX lines run on the surface, as well. If there were a tunnel, I’d like to see it as more of a supplement than a replacement. Perhaps a tunnel linking Sunset to Pioneer Square to the Rose Quarter, or some other “express” configuration?
hroðberacht said: “I think there is value in having MAX lines run on the surface.”
I don’t know of any other city that has trains running in four directions from downtown and maintains rapid transit on surface streets. I’ve long preached that “streets are for streetcars.” What value does MAX have in your mind by running on surface streets?
Nick S: I really like the streets are for streetcars mantra. Grade separated streetcars downtown kinda seem like where we ought to be headed anyways. Keep the red/blue max stops as streetcar stops plus, perhaps, a grade separated streetcar line running down 18th/19 to Montgomery Ward from Civic stadium.
I’m a bit skeptical of the value of tunnel. I can see its value in upgrading the entire system to handle four-car trains, IF we reach the point where four-car trains are necessary. But otherwise, would the increase in speed and reliability of a subway justify what would probably be more than $2 billion in capital costs? I have my doubts.
I think we will need a second river crossing to open up the Steel Bridge bottleneck. That’s the biggest obstacle to increasing the capacity of the system using two-car trains. A tunnel could do that, but there are other options. Jim Howell’s concept of running the Yellow line on the eastside would do that. Having the Yellow line loop up to Broadway and cross the Broadway Bridge on the streetcar tracks might also be a possibility. I’d like to know if it’s possible (and if so, how much it would cost) to structurally improve the Steel Bridge to support MAX crossing on its outer lanes, thus allowing four tracks across the bridge.
But a tunnel? How much time does it save between Lloyd Center and Goose Hollow, over and above what could be saved by removing several stations from the surface line and improving the Steel Bridge crossing?
Although I rarely consider going through downtown on the MAX because of its snail pace, there are a lot of advantages for this: cost and visibility just a couple.
It may gum up traffic a bit, but it exposes people to transit that would otherwise avoid even seeing it (I saw a couple in a car drive onto the MAX line and down the sidewalk at the Eastbound Jeld-Wen station just yesterday). Also, if you see it coming, you may be more likely to jump on.
I would really enjoy a limited-station (even taking out the proposed City Hall station), underground thoroughfare through downtown. But I’d rather it be spent on the Powell, Barbur line, or dare I say it NE 33rd ave line (if these are at all possible).
One major thing this proposal does is it eliminates a number of stops. What happens if you keep MAX above ground but eliminate the same number of stops in the downtown core? How many of the advantages of a subway would you get without all of the expense of tunneling?
I have always disliked the way Max runs multiple lines along the same route in places. It’s terrible for serving a larger geographic area. By putting all 4 lines in the same tunnel through all of downtown, you make this situation even worse.
Personally, I don’t mind all of the extra stops. It slows the system, but lets me get on & off closer to where I’m going.
Having lived in DC for a few years , I love the underground system idea. It runs so much smoother , it never is stuck in traffic , and clearly does not bog up the grid. Two Thumbs Up
MAX is scheduled to run at around 23 minutes from Goose Hollow to Lloyd Center. We all know that it can be longer during rush hour. With this tunnel concept, that same distance would likely be 10 minutes. This is a fairly significant time savings, and trains would not be affected by traffic, ice, bridge closures, bridge lifts, etc.
Light rail can be fast if it runs on its own exclusive right of way segregated from auto/pedestrian/bicycle traffic.
As far as I am concerned putting light rail down the middle of downtown was a tremendous blunder.
It slows the system down to streetcar speed and allows to many opportunities for accidents.
Underground would have made this city a world class transit provider.
Right now its all Mickey Mouse (IMO) in the lame attempt to imitate some cities in Europe, which can’t be done because we are NOT EUROPE!
One of the major reasons that only 12% of the population uses Trimet is because it is too slow!
Time does have a value, as a matter of fact it’s priceless because once its gone its gone forever.
MAX takes 23 minutes from Lloyd Center to Goose Hollow. Assume a tunnel takes 10 minutes. But we shouldn’t treat this as a 13 minute savings; the proper comparison would be based on how much time can we save by surface line improvements in the same area? If getting rid of five surface stations (Kings Hill, Pioneer Place, Oak Street, Skidmore Fountain, Convention Center) and speeding up the Steel Bridge crossing can save six minutes, then we’d be looking at the difference between 17 minutes and 10 minutes.
The question is, would a $2 billion subway compared to, say, $20 million in surface improvements be justified in light of seven minutes time savings and greater reliability? I’d say not, particularly if we could steer that money to transit improvements throughout the Metro area.
“The question is, would a $2 billion subway compared to, say, $20 million in surface improvements be justified in light of seven minutes time savings and greater reliability? I’d say not, particularly if we could steer that money to transit improvements throughout the Metro area.”
~~~>Nobody actually expects a subway right? That didn’t happen and it will never happen now.
It would have been a good idea when they put the whole thing in, but too late now.
Transit is going in the other direction, FALLING APART, LESS AND LESS SERVICE.
I’ve read articles proclaiming the impending doom of public transport in the USA.
Personally I don’t see how its at all sustainable in its current structure.
Public transit in America is for the people that make money providing it. Executive careerists first and foremost, then unionized employees.
It’s just like the rest of government now, its run for the benefit of the people that run it.
Riders are just there because they have to be.
(and I really believe that)
Just like THIS GUY!
Looks good
I think the Lloyd District has to be underground just because of the depth to get under the river and the % grade incline to get to that depth, afterall the Lloyd District is on a hill so it has even more elevation to make up.
I’m sick of transit in Portland taking forever and being stuck in traffic. I’m huge on placemaking, but I’m sick of transit having to crawl along at a snails pace for urban design sake which is the typical argument in favor of MAX on the surface downtown. Buses are slow and rail is slow in Portland, it would be nice if we could have some rapid transit so transit wasnt always the speed of walking.
1980 Oregonian article about TriMet not interested in a downtown subway… http://flic.kr/p/9Ekroe
Why not run 4 car trains downtown in those few instances where needed like rush hour? Yes some cross streets may be blocked temporarily when the train is in station but wheelchairs and elderly could continue to board at the regular station platforms (where the ramps are) and other riders could board there too as well as the cars behind in the street. This is no different than how people used to board streetcars 100 years ago and how streetcars used the street. Its only an infatuation with motor vehicles never having to stop for anything and prioritizing a few people few in a few cars over hundreds aboard a single train why this is seen as heresy. But this would be a low cost solution to the current capacity problem without spending billions on a subway.
Another option perhaps is to run a branch of the subway tunnel under Jefferson or Columbia with the split from 5th/6th around City Hall station, this would have Red/Blue miss PSU Urban Center station but could still serve PSU with a station at 10th/Jefferson/Art Museum. City Hall would be the transfer station.
Putting 4-car trains on downtown streets at rush hour is a recipe for creating gridlock that will tie up traffic all throughout the core — including the trains themselves. You think MAX is slow now….
My own “four car train” proposal is less ambitious than a tunnel. It keeps MAX on the surface, except for Morrison and Yamhill. Expand the Blue Line stations to 400 feet (that’ll be really expensive for Washington Park and Sunset TC; fairly reasonable for the others) and get rid of some stations between Lloyd Center and Goose Hollow. Keep the Kings Hill station in this scenario and turn the Jeld-Wen stadium plaza into the western tunnel portal.
The tunnel would run under Morrison from 18th to 1st, with the eastern tunnel just south of the Morrison Bridge. And there would be a single underground station between Pioneer Square and the Galleria, allowing for transfers to the transit mall at the east end and the Portland Streetcar at the west end. The tracks on the surface would be converted to a segment of a Portland Streetcar line from Northwest Portland to the Hawthorne Bridge. As a subway project goes, it’s a short one, but would allow faster trips through downtown and four-car trains on the Blue Line.
Ideally, the project would include engineering improvements to the Steel Bridge that I mentioned earlier: speeding up the bridge crossing, and structural reinforcement (if feasible) to support MAX tracks on the outside lanes.
Thanks for fixing the formatting, Scotty. Curse those brackets…
So many great ideas are being bandied about that I might sit down again with my vintage version of CorelDraw and hammer out a few more concepts. Regarding keeping the Yellow Line on the transit mall, I’m envisioning it as a future crosstown route, whether as a future Barbur line or transitioning into the Orange Line, so I definitely prefer to grade-separate it just like the other lines.
The Broadway Bridge is another potential relief to the Steel Bridge bottleneck, except I think I remember hearing that streetcar tracks are incompatible with LRT vehicles (but not vice-versa).
The Broadway Bridge is another potential relief to the Steel Bridge bottleneck, except I think I remember hearing that streetcar tracks are incompatible with LRT vehicles (but not vice-versa).
~~~>Speaking of that are they going to have some sort of ‘connector’ rail line between this new bridge and the lines that go over the steel bridge?
The simplest, least cost tunnel would handle the Blue/Red/Green lines with the westside portal beneath the Morrison Bridgehead and the eastside portal & combined Rose Quarter/Convention Center Subway Station would be as this proposal suggests. The Yellow/Orange line would run on the Transit Mall and the Steel Bridge.
This is a 1-mile tunnel, probably cut/cover under 1st Ave. All Eastside MAX trains routed onto the Transit Mall during construction. For Westside MAX trains, a temporary turnround is constructed on 1st Ave. Some tunnel options for segment between the “ONE” Subway Station at Rose Quarter & the cut/cover beneath 1st. The MAX ramp to 1st Ave might have to come down.
Estimated cost: $500Million
If lower-cost “deep excavation” tunnel is possible beneath 1st Ave, MAX could run normal operation during most of the construction. This leaves rail in place for potential streetcar line: 1-direction circulator, south on 1st, north on 2nd between Washington and Everett.
2 Billion is not that much when we’re talking transit dollars.
The Milwaukie line costs 1.5B, and it’s not really going anywhere. Hell, Crossrail in London is costing *at least* 16B pounds!
If 2B gets Portland 4 car trainsets and shaves off 15 m in rush hour travel time, it’s a steal.
Even if you dismiss the advantages gained in doubling system capacity and reducing crosstown travel time by two thirds, there’s something else to consider:
The system cannot expand further because the Steel Bridge is a bottleneck, already effecting delays and sure to limit capacity increase in the future.
Dive deep just after the vista tunnels near the round at jefferson st, then put a station in at Civic stadium, one at Pioneer Square, one at Burnside and one at Rose Quarter.
Keep the transit mall trains going until it’s time for another tunnel.
2 Billion is not that much when we’re talking transit dollars.
The Milwaukie line costs 1.5B, and it’s not really going anywhere. Hell, Crossrail in London is costing *at least* 16B pounds!
If 2B gets Portland 4 car trainsets and shaves off 15 m in rush hour travel time, it’s a steal.
Even if you dismiss the advantages gained in doubling system capacity and reducing crosstown travel time by two thirds, there’s something else to consider:
The system cannot expand further because the Steel Bridge is a bottleneck, already effecting delays and sure to limit capacity increase in the future.
Dive deep just after the vista tunnels near the round at jefferson st, then put a station in at Civic stadium, one at Pioneer Square, one at Burnside and one at Rose Quarter.
Keep the transit mall trains going until it’s time for another tunnel.
Just to be clear, any potential tunnel through downtown cannot be built below existing rail lines without also taking those lines out of service for several years. That’s a non-starter. So when you’re brainstorming your proposals, Morrison/Yamhill, 1st Ave, the Transit Mall, 18th Ave, 10th/11th, Holliday (through Lloyd Center) are all off limits as alignments when routing a subway. Possible N/S alignments would be Broadway or 4th Ave. And E/W possibilities include (but are by no means limited to) Columbia, Jefferson, Salmon, Taylor, Burnside, or Multnomah though the Lloyd District/Rose Quarter.
When (not if) the subway is built, the surface MAX lines would be reused as streetcar lines. Seeing as the stations are already spaced for streetcar operation, it’ll be a seemless transition. So rail transit will still be a very visible part of the downtown experience. Only the regional MAX trains would be below grade, as they should be.
Ok out of the box , but what if there were 2 tunnels… 1 under that dumped out set the lower deck of the steel bridge and threw other that went underground on the west side? Perhaps this would break everything for freight but not tunneling under threw river seems like it should have done benefits. A subway in Rome has a similar setup where it is over a bridge
Hmm, this is an interesting proposal, but I’m not positive that it’s the right approach. While there is still some land around some of the MAX stations that could be intensified, the bigger land use gains would come from adding corridors to the regional transit system. I would propose adding electrified commuter rail corridors on the T.V. Highway line, the St Helens Road line, the I-84 line, the 99W line and the Oregon City line, all coming in to converge at Union Station. As some of these could provide transfer stations & alternatives to get downtown potentially faster, they could potentially provide service improvements to existing customers while also growing the system and expanding the pool of potential TOD acres in the region.
…and that entire list could potentially be built for a $2 billion investment, depending on the bridge & tunnel work required to electrify and double-track those alignments…
I’m all for adding more HCT corridors to the system… MAX, commuter rail, BRT or otherwise. And more TOD’s… absolutely. But that’s a separate discussion. None of that increases the speed, safety and capacity of MAX through Downtown. Only a subway will do that. There are already crush loads at peak hours, and the Steele Bridge and Red/Blue-Yellow/Green/soon-to-be-Orange crossing at Pioneer Courthouse are close to capacity today, let alone 10-20-30 years from now when there’s another million or so new Portlanders living here.
Here finishes my proposal for a 1-mile tunnel, twin-tube under Willamette, cut/cover beneath vacated 1st Ave: Install ONE subway station on 1st Ave below plaza to serve Saturday Market. Remove surface rail on 1st Ave and close Old Town & Oak Street stations. Close 4th Ave and King’s Hill stations. Westside MAX trains use temporary turnaround at 1st Ave, Eastside MAX trains run on Transit Mall. Disruption of service to construct east portal and Rose Quarter subway station CAN be minimized. Ballpark estimate still in $500 Million range.
The 23 minute run from Goose Hollow to Rose Quarter for Blue/Red lines is thus reduced to 12 minutes. Green Line turnaround at 11th. Yellow/Orange line on Transit Mall & Steel Bridge.
Commuter-rail systems are counter-productive for land-use and development. It’s bad enough when MAX lines end up mostly serving commuters. No need to run 3 or 4-car MAX trains when station area development brings jobs and services closer to home and reduce need to commute. Commute systems create more demand for commuting than they can handle. Light rail is an anti-commute transit system.
So, if you don’t want 3-4 car MAX trains, why build a tunnel in the first place? And why under 1st Ave but not Morrison/Yamhill?
Also, I don’t understand your “light rail is anti-commute” or “commute systems create more demand for commuting than they can handle” statements. Since when is ANY kind of rail system “counter-productive for land use and development”?
Commuter transit systems, commuter-rail & express bus, have the least number of stations and limit development of their station areas by devoting most space to huge parking lots & garages, noisy-polluting-circuitous-duplicative bus queue & stalls.
Light rail lines have many more stations that literally require ‘multi-purpose’ development to reach train capacity in both directions at all hours. Their station area development creates many more jobs for locals first in line to obtain and reduce their need for long-distance commuting.
Stations on an LRT system reduce time commuting and create time for transit use off-rush hours. Commute systems increase the demand for commuting which grows beyond their capacity; the bulk falling to personal automobiles to fill.
The 1-mile tunnel as proposed is a low-cost yet effective option. In other words: “do-able” and supportable. Pretending cost doesn’t matter produces designs that never leave the drawing board. The portal beneath the Morrison bridgehead is a conveniently simple entry and travel time through town ‘adequately’ reduced.
I realized that one possible drawback to my proposal is that by having all lines share the same ROW through most of downtown creates the potential for a massive bottleneck (even worse than the one we have now). This could be alleviated by having Green/Yellow/Orange Lines share one pair of tracks and Red/Blue sharing a second parallel pair, but that would necessitate multiple platforms at each station.
But Wells, your proposal adds zero capacity (the bottleneck at Pioneer Courthouse is still there) and tunnels under an existing alignment. Doing it on the cheap is pointless if there’s no net gain in capacity. And worse, you’re also eliminating any E/W through service on the Red and Blue lines while the tunnel is being built on First. First Ave is not the bottleneck, so why tear that up? In fact, 3-4 car trains could already stop under the Burnside Bridge without blocking any cross traffic at all.
If you want to add capacity on the E/W axis, one alternative would be to start the tunnel at a below grade (not underground) Rose Quarter/Convention Center Station under I-5, then dive under the UP tracks, the Willamette and surface at a below grade (not underground) station on Naito under Burnside. Cut and cover down Naito to Taylor or Salmon then turn west into an underground station between 1st and 3rd that serves WTC, and all the government buildings and towers around the City Hall park blocks. Continue to another underground station between 6th and Park that serves the Transit Mall and Streetcar corridors as well as Pioneer Sq, Broadway, the Arts District, the West End and the South Park Blocks. Then a final station (open air, below grade) on 18th between Salmon and Jefferson that will serve Jeld Wen, MAC, Goose Hollow and the Lincoln HS site (which is slated to be redeveloped in the near future). It would then merge with the existing Jefferson St alignment and enter the Robertson Tunnel.
The Blue, Red and Green lines can use the E/W subway while the Yellow and Orange use the Transit Mall. If the Yellow becomes a through route from Tigard to Vancouver, then 4-car trains will need to be added in another N/S subway.
dan w Said: “I realized that one possible drawback to my proposal is that by having all lines share the same ROW through most of downtown creates the potential for a massive bottleneck (even worse than the one we have now).”
Actually, that’s not true. Having all the lines in a single tunnel is the most cost effective (and operationally effective) way to handle all MAX traffic through Downtown. If the stations have island platforms (which is most likely), a third track between the NB and SB tracks and between stations would alleviate any problems like stalled trains or routine track and tunnel maintenance. The affected track could simply be bypassed. It also makes transferring between trains much easier.
BART has 4 trains running in the same tunnel from Daly City to Oakland (Red, Yellow, Blue and Green) and handles much higher capacities than Portland will ever need. And MUNI has 5 lines (J, K, L, M and N) in its own parallel subway.
Douglas K.
There’s a reason that the rail lines are in the middle of the two bridges: the outer lanes are fully cantilevered on the steel bridge and partially cantilevered on the Broadway. Yes, the structural box does surround the outer lanes on the Broadway, but the floor struts are not the same thickness across the entire structure; they’re thicker in the center where the trains run.
In any case, Yellow Line trains would certainly bring down the Broadway Bridge. The reason they can cross the Steel is that it’s built for freight trains. Broadway has always been for streetcars and autos.
Garlyn Woodsong,
How would trains along the “T. V. Highway line” get to Union Station? Are you proposing to loop them down through Lake Oswego? Or out to Banks and over Cornelius Pass?
Sorry to be a wet blanket, but nobody lives along “the St. Helens Road line”.
And why duplicate the Max along “the I-84 line”?
You do know that it costs $1000/hour to run Wes, right?
al m,
You can’t “speed up the Steel Bridge crossing”. UP owns it and they don’t Max shaking the superstructure to pieces. It’s only by the best of lucky strokes that the upper deck supports LRT’s. If it weren’t that the superstructure has to support the counterbalance for the freight deck, it probably wouldn’t. It was built for pre-PCC streetcars, not 50 ton LRV’s.
All Of You,
How do you intend to get from a reasonable platform level at Rose Quarter/Convention Center to a track level of 75 feet below MSL in order to protect the tunnel from riverine disasters unless you make a large belly to the north? If you do that, a more useful placement of the northend station is west of the Post Office building in order to serve the Pearl District. Yes, there should be a walkway to Union Station, but there will be far more 24 hour traffic generated by the Pearl than the station, so it should be the primary station focus.
Ideally the Government Center station should be under Fourth rather than the transit mall. It’s closer to the center of gravity of development, which can’t go west of Broadway because of the arts facilities.
Other than those two comments the proposal is great.
Aaron Hall,
You are VERY wrong, sir. Even if you assume cut and cover (which would be a pretty chancy idea four blocks from a river….) Muni ran the streetcars throughout the Market Street Madness in the 1960’s and ’70’s.
Brenda, Balto, and Togo have all finished their work on University Link in less time than scheduled and with no surprises. It’s true that the TBM’s working on the Robertson ran into some difficulties, but great strides have been made in the last fifteen years in them.
Bore ANY transit tunnel unless you’re in basalt or granite when you have to blast.
There’s a reason that the rail lines are in the middle of the two bridges: the outer lanes are fully cantilevered on the steel bridge
Anandakos, that’s why I ask the question — can the Steel Bridge be modified to handle MAX on the outside lanes? What would it take? What additions/enhancements are needed? Wider box, stronger towers, additional weights?
If it’s impossible from an engineering standpoint, then fine, drop it. But if it’s a hundred million or two hundred million dollar project, then it may well be the least expensive way to eliminate the MAX bottleneck — far less expensive than any tunnel. I suspect that UP would be perfectly happy with Tri-Met picking up the tab to give them a stronger, more durable bridge.
Anandakos,
Where am I wrong? Are you telling me MUNI does NOT run 5 light rail lines through its Market St subway? ‘Cause the last 100 or so times I was in SF, I seem to remember riding all 5 of them at one time or another.
My point, which you seemed to miss, was that multiple rail lines can operate within the same subway tunnel quite well. I have no idea what MUNI did with their streetcars in the ’60s and ’70s, or why that’s relevant here.
Also, OF COURSE you would bore the tunnels through Downtown and under the Willamette. Cut and cover through the center of town would be an absolute nightmare. Subway stations are already going to be very disruptive to the street above them, which is why I said you CANNOT run a new subway under existing MAX alignments. It would sever MAX service wherever you placed a station. The only cut and cover I ever suggested was where my hypothetical E/W line paralleled Naito and was close to the surface on the west edge of Waterfront Park, with minimal disruption to existing buildings and street circulation. There’s nothing “chancy” or remotely dangerous about that.
THIS kind of nonsense (very common in Portland area) does NOT happen if you have a tunnel.
Aaron, listen. Prohibitively expensive subway and high-capacity light rail arrangements can be avoided with land-use and development considerations I’ve already tried to explain, namely, commute systems create more demand for commuting than they can handle. Consider: BART runs 10-car trainsets during rush hours but reduces trainset length 4-cars at other hours. Yet, another Transbay Tube is still considered logical (by some transit wonks) to serve the growing number of Eastbay commuters. Directing Eastbay development to reduce commuting to San Francisco is the only way to stop the growth of such commuting. Your logic would have that 2nd Transbay Tube built rather than consider community building to reduce commuting which overwhelms BART, Bay Bridge and other freeways during rush hours. Your logic is employed at State Highway departments to insure transit doesn’t work.
Pioneer Square isn’t a bottleneck per se. Downtown stations ‘collectively’ are a bottleneck that can be ameliorated (as my proposal suggests) by reducing their number from 10 to 5 with a 6th subway station to serve Old Town, quick travel under the Willamette and a subway station to serve Rose Quarter and Convention Center. MAX does NOT need to increase capacity. It’s more important to carefully direct development of suburban segments so that commuting may be reduced. If you don’t incorporate these development concepts into your logic, you’re only learning “Old School” obsolete notions prone to failure.
So Wells, how do you propose to accommodate the “growing number of Eastbay commuters”? Tell them not to commute? Instruct them where they should live, work, shop? A moratorium on all new construction in the Eastbay. That’s not a possibilty. It doesn’t matter how you direct the growth, the fact that there IS growth is what creates the demand for crossbay trips. If the demand is there for another Transbay tunnel, then why shouldn’t they build one?
Same goes for Portland. Metro does an OK job of “directing growth” as much as is possible in a free market. But the more the population grows here, the more demand for commuting there will be, no matter how well the suburbs direct their own development. Sticking your head in the sand and saying we don’t need to add capacity won’t eliminate the growing demand.
You seem to consider the expansion of transit facilities equivalent to freeway expansions. That’s apples and oranges. The latter is far more damaging to the urban environment than new transit lines, and “prohibitively” more expensive. What you’re proposing (as best as I can tell) is a “no build” scenario Downtown where we just make do with what we have now and everybody that comes later will just have to fend for themselves. I’m not sure how you can advocate planning for growth in the suburbs, but not plan for that same growth in the center city as if they’re not interdependent. There’s a definite disconnect in that logic. I don’t consider planning for growth to be “Old School”, I consider that common sense.
And I hate to be just rebutting you point by point, but the E/W and N/S MAX crossing at Pioneer Courthouse is as much of a bottleneck as the Steele Bridge. All lines cross in both places. I do agree that there are about 4 or 5 stations too many on the Red/Blue line and eliminating those would shave several minutes from travel times. But it won’t alleviate the bottlenecks.
Here’s how your logic fails, Aaron: You say the crossing at Pioneer Square is a bottleneck equal to the Steel Bridge. Nonsense. The Steel Bridge has a much more restrictively slower speed limit than downtown and the rail crossings on each side are much more difficult to navigate than the Pioneer Square crossing.
You are “Old School” Aaron; a young man already old. The most you’ll be able to do is receive a paycheck from criminally incompetent planning agencies to pose as knowledgeable. I’ll bet you’re a big supporter of high-speed rail, nevermind the cost, nevermind the environmental impacts to Peninsula communities; 200mph travel is of the utmost importance to those who normally make the trip flying First Class and people like you are useful to them to make that project happen so they may feel better about luxury travel between Los Angeles and the Bay Area.
There’s no need to get personal, let’s stick to policy, please!
Hmm, interesting response. So your anti-planning bias is clearly visible, which explains a lot. That’s fine, to each their own. But I maintain that both locations are bottlenecks. Maybe you have a different idea about what constitutes a bottleneck, so we’ll agree to disagree on that one.
And sorry to burst your bubble, but I’m retired and pushing 50… hardly young. You really shouldn’t jump to conclusions about people you’ve never met.
The Steel Bridge bottleneck really is a problem that needs to be addressed WITH or WITHOUT the CRC, downtown subway, etc. God bless it, it may be the most functional bridge in the world at 100 years old (what other bridge serves cars/trucks, buses, light rail, intercity rail, freight rail, bikes, and peds?), but there is really no reason that our regional transportation system should rely on it so heavily. The CRC calls for bridge work to support 15 mph MAX operation on the bridge (up from 10 mph currently to increase train capacity) but why can’t we do that work sooner (and separate from the CRC) for the good of transit mobility in Portland?
And I’m going to emphatically agree with what Anandakos said above. You want to build an expensive downtown subway, you don’t support its ridership by building more stations in Chinatown, you serve the Pearl District where densities are higher than anywhere else outside of Downtown. Two stations actually: one to serve Lovejoy/Union Station/future Post Office development and another at Burnside-Couch. Only question is if street ROWs west of the Park Blocks (9th, for example) are wide enough to avoid having to stack tunnels.
I’m not anti-planning, but I am against planner-types who embrace the fantasy of prohibitively expensive subways, high-capacity commute systems and 200+mph high-speed rail, and who won’t consider land-use and development aspects that are intregal to planning.
What I propose for Portland is to distrubute development equitably between soulless suburban townships and central city within the scope of Regional planning.
I do not espouse Old School ideological free market drivel of Supply & Demand which increases suburban sprawl and the need to commute. Reducing the need to commute simplifies transit system design. BART for instance could run 4-car trainsets at all hours and redevelop its soulless suburban stations when unquestionably know-it-all planners decide BART cannot handle the amount of commuting it enables; commuting which falls upon the personal automobile to fulfill regretably throughout the Bay Area.
Yet another lawsuit against the proposed California HSR system has been filed by central valley farmers. But its proponents, First Class Flyers, and hangers-on wannabees, won’t consider a simpler, low-cost passenger-rail system that may reach 135mph but could be supported and built. Whoever supports 200mph HSR will watch the HSR dream die.
“You seem to consider the expansion of transit facilities equivalent to freeway expansions” says Aaron. Au contrare, Aaron makes this planning assumption, not I. When transit capacity is reached, Aaron adds capacity exactly the same way freeway planners add capacity with more lanes and new corridors. MY planning philosophy is to maximize light rail capacity by reducing the need to commute by directing development to achieve that goal and other goals like rebuilding suburban schmucklands into more humane habitat.
Adding capacity to freeways promotes the sprawl that you’re rightfully opposed to. But adding capacity to transit does just the opposite, it promotes denser, more comprehensive neighborhoods that reduces the amount of land and resources needed to accommodate a growing population. No, the two are NOT equivalent. One is “bad”, the other is “good”. They are not both “bad”.
So if you don’t want to add more freeways (bravo) AND you don’t want to add more transit (huh???), then the only other option is no growth at all. In Portland, that’s not an option. You can only “maximize capacity” to a certain point. Eventually (and sooner than later in this case) you’ll be AT maximum capacity without planning anything beyond that. Then what? How do you propose that another million or so people arriving here in the next 30-40 years get around? Planning high density communities throughout the metro area is great, but people still need to get around. They aren’t going to sequester themselves within those neighborhoods, no matter how wonderfully humane those neighborhoods are.
Aaron, let this edit of your premise prove my point as deserving respect:
“Adding freeway capacity promotes the sprawl you rightly oppose. Adding transit capacity does the opposite; it promotes dense comprehensive neighborhoods that reduce land area & resources necessary to accommodate growing population.”
“If you don’t want to add more freeways, bravo. But if you don’t want to add more transit, huh? The only other option is no growth.” (Really?)
“In Portland, no growth is not an option. You can only ‘maximize capacity’ to a certain point.” (Oh really?) “Eventually in this case maximum capacity is exceeded without plans, then what?” (Really?) “How do you propose another million people here the next 30-40 years get around?” (Whee! Gitting arownd!)
Planning (Not building?) high-density community throughout this metro is great, but people still need to get around. (Well I guess so?) They won’t sequester themselves to their neighborhoods, no matter how wonderfully humane those neighborhoods are. (Well gosh darn it all anyway, wonderfully humane neighborhoods don’t count for much with Aaruhn. darn!)
More objective thought would be appreciated, especially to my writings here. Casual confrontational responses are pointless. I have rehashed Aaron’s writing down to its basic sense and followed that with honest criticism. Yet who serves up old hash? I oppose heirarchical unquestionable authority. My points deserve more than half-baked logic for their tolerable rejection.
Aaron Hall,
I was responding to your claim that none of the existing streets with rail tracks could have the tunnel underneath them. I guess I should have quoted the post, but I figured it would be obvious with the reference to “the Market Street Madness”.
I lived in San Francisco in those days and it was pretty amazing. The trench in Market was over 100 feet deep. They didn’t move the utilities except at the stations for the mezzanines. Instead they hung them from a steel framework with a wooden street surface laid on top and which supported the streetcar tracks. You could look down through a tangle of pipes as deep as 40 feet between the stations.
Your other ideas are just fine. I was only saying, “If Fifth or Sixth turns out to be the best alignment for a tunnel, EVEN if it’s cut-and-cover (it shouldn’t be these days, but EVEN…), those streets could be used.
Sure, it would be a pain in the neck to cut-and-cover tunnels in downtown Portland, but I don’t think anyone would propose that at this time. Which makes any rail track on the surface really quite moot.
Reza,
Agreed on the Burnside/Couch station. I did a post a couple of weeks ago on this topic saying exactly the same thing. There’s that big bank building right there already and PLENTY of available land both north and sound of Burnside.
Don’t worry about the street ROW width. Just bore under the trees down the middle of the Park Blocks. If you’re down deep enough they’ll do fine. You definitely need a mezzanine at Burnside/Couch so you can have entrances on both sides of Burnside and an all-weather connection to the bank building.
Wells,
You say, “I have rehashed Aaron’s writing down to its basic sense and followed that with honest criticism…”
Actually, no you haven’t. Your responses to my questions and comments have been….
“Really?”, “Oh really?”, “Really?, “Whee! Gitting arownd!”, “Well I guess so?”, “Well gosh darn it all anyway, wonderfully humane neighborhoods don’t count for much with Aaruhn. darn!”.
None of that answers my questions, or even makes much sense for that matter.
“More objective thought would be appreciated, especially to my writings here. Casual confrontational responses are pointless.”
I couldn’t agree more, and yet your responses to me have been purely confrontational and not entirely coherent. You attack me personally, but don’t back up your assertions with anything but “I oppose heirarchical unquestionable authority.” OK great, and I oppose unquestioned authority too. What’s your point? You still haven’t answered my question… How are you planning for future growth without adding any capacity to our infrastructure?
Now that I’m back from vacation, the incivility in this thread ends here.
Focusing on the issues–a significant advantage of transit (particularly high-capacity transit) is that it scales far better. A single rail lane can carry far more people than a freeway lane full of SOVs. (A lane full of busses is another matter, obviously). Cars and density don’t work together–designing an urban area for efficient movement of lots of automobiles requires sprawling, sprawling is expensive, and as commute distances lengthen due to the sprawl, the ability to mitigate congestion by adding capacity quickly hits a point of diminishing returns.
Transit doesn’t suffer from this scalability problem.
There is a school of thought in urban design that NO high-capacity infrastructure ought to be built, in order to discourage long commutes and encourage development of strong communities. My objection to this is that many of the things which make a city a city cannot be distributed. YMCA gyms in every neighborhood are not a replacement for the Rose Garden; nor are doctors offices on each corner a replacement for OHSU. A thriving city is more than a collection of adjacent and insular small towns, and part of making a city thrive is making it possible all of its resources to be pooled as productively as possible.
I would also suggest refraining from using pejoratives like “soulless” to describe communities that have different values.
I liked this MAX Underground lines – all colors of MAX lines, I want seeing Green MAX goes into Southwest Corridor included OSHU, destinations. Please allow movie theatre, fast foods, retails in underground pleasure and Allow Free WIFI, please. Two Thumb Up! smile let me know! smile
I’m sick of transit in Portland taking forever and MAX trains being stuck in traffic during surface street-operation as well as all passengers made their sick of transit that MAX runs slowly in downtown Portland during surface street operation. I’m huge on placemaking endorsement of MAX Subway in Downtown Portland & electric trolleybuses, but I’m sick of transit having to crawl along at snails pace for urban design sake which is the typical argument in favor of MAX on the surface downtown. Buses are slow and all rail lines are slowing in Portland, it would be nice if we could have some rapid transit so transit wasnt always the speed of walking. I certain that I endorsed electric trolleybuses include: non-Bus Rapid Transit and Bus Rapid Transit. Let me know! Two Thumbs Up! Smile!
I have always answered Aaron’s questions about my transit design theory with common regional planning philosophy. Aaron simply can’t or doesn’t want to hear it, something I find humorous. It is fair to counter-attack the volleys Aaron fires on my position. If one can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. My sense of maximizing capacity efficiency is more logical than Aaron’s position of ignoring proven failures inherent within increasing commute system capacity.
“How are you planning for future growth without adding capacity to our infrastructure?” As I’ve already stated in terms that go over Aaron’s head, we plan our future around maximizing existing capacity through sensible land-use and development that reduces our wasteful and foolish need to commute.
“A significant advantage of high-capacity transit is that it scales better. Cars and density don’t work together. Designing an urban area for the efficient movement of automobiles requires sprawl,(really?). As commute distances lengthen due to sprawl, the ability to mitigate congestion by adding [roadway] capacity quickly hits a point of diminishing returns. Transit doesn’t suffer from this scalability problem.”
(Really?) EastBay-to-SF BART exceeds capacity during rush hours. Who’s to say another Transbay Tube wouldn’t likewise exceed capacity and likewise run at 1/4 capacity MOST hours of operation? The school of thought I subscribe suggests BART could reduce its capacity, redevelop its station areas and increase ridership. Some school of thought is wrong:
“There is a school of thought that NO high-capacity infrastructure should be built to discourage long commutes and encourage local community development. My objection is that many things which make up a city cannot be distributed. YMCA gyms in every neighborhood are not a replacement for the Rose Garden,(Really?), nor are doctors offices on each corner a replacement for OHSU,(Really?)”
Open Access gyms in every neighborhood is a sensibly located replacement for inaccessable sports pavilions. Medical facilities and clinics located in and near neighborhoods would save more lives than OHSU.
“A thriving city is more than a collection of adjacent and insular small towns. Part of making a city thrive is in pooling its resources as productively as possible.”
Insular suburban communities do not give to their metropolitan regions as much as they take. Commuting suburbanites can preserve their adorable strip malls and high-speed neon boulevards or redevelop these soulless places, (soulless as in NO pedestrians), to become healthier communities with stronger, more diversified local economies. Or they can keep commuting on more high-capacity transit. Which school of thought is actually thinking?
Oh, I “hear” what you’re saying, Wells. It just doesn’t make sense. That’s not heat coming out of the kitchen, it’s a whole lot of smoke. You want to rely solely on the redevelopment of existing suburbs, hoping that that will magically reduce the “foolish” need to commute. Like I said, developing dense comprehensive neighborhoods throughout the city is great, that’s a goal worth working towards. But you’re also proposing that everybody work at home, and if you’re unlucky enough to have a job where you have to commute, too bad. No more roads or transit, we’ll just make do with what we have now.
If you want to ignore a basic fact of urban life (commuting), I can’t reason with that. So you can call it whatever you want…. but it’s definitely not planning, unless you consider a no-growth philosophy “planning”. It’s OK if that’s what you believe, Wells. If you don’t like what some “planner types” advocate, fine. Just don’t pretend it’s something else. And don’t insult my intelligence by telling me that your “logic” is so superior that it somehow goes “over my head”. It doesn’t.
Open Access gyms in every neighborhood is a sensibly located replacement for inaccessable sports pavilions. Medical facilities and clinics located in and near neighborhoods would save more lives than OHSU.
I assume Aaron was referring not so much to the public going to a gym to exercise, but rather going to watch the Trail Blazers. Small towns close together still don’t have major league sports.
Also, how much cutting-edge research is going to occur at your neighborhood medical clinics?
Didn’t Jane Jacobs address this about a million years ago?
…we plan our future around maximizing existing capacity through sensible land-use and development that reduces our wasteful and foolish need to commute.
Which is all well and good, and certain parts of the Portland metro area could do more to develop their own employment bases, but keep in mind not all occupations lend themselves to a five-minute commute. Will the airline gate agent want to live within walking distance of a noisy airport? Will the furnace repairman be able to make enough of a living only servicing customers a one-mile drive from his home base?
Also, there are plenty of reasons people venture out of their neighborhoods that have zip to do with commuting. Camping at the coast (barring a cataclysmic seismic event, I don’t see every neighborhood getting its own coast anytime soon). Going to the zoo. Checking out that new Indonesian restaurant on the other side of town. Picking up Aunt Gladys at the train station. Watching the Timbers play (and possibly win). I could go on…
Finally, there at least some suburbs that are trying to leave strip-mall hell behind, however slowly. Beaverton, for one, has a first-rate farmers’ market, an excellent library, hopeful signs of an emerging arts/dining scene (Decarli’s Italian restaurant is always packed), and, possibly as soon as next year, minor league baseball practically next door.
Jon’s post:
“1980 Oregonian article about TriMet not interested in a downtown subway… http://flic.kr/p/9Ekroe“
That article was interesting. TriMet at the time said a tunnel wouldn’t make sense until one or two more “spokes” were finished after the Blue Line.
Well, the Westside, Yellow and Orange will make three more…
Does anyone know how I can post a jpeg?
I made a quick proposal that I think meets the needs of the portland region at reasonable cost.
“Wells. It just doesn’t make sense. That’s not heat coming out of the kitchen, it’s a whole lot of smoke. You want to rely solely on the redevelopment of existing suburbs, hoping that that will magically reduce the foolish need to commute.”
The amount of commuting we do is indeed foolish.
“But you’re proposing that everybody work at home.”
I propose developing more jobs closer to home, not at home.
“If you’re unlucky enough to have a job where you have to commute, too bad. No more roads or transit, we’ll just make do with what we have now.”
You exaggerate and distort my meaning again.
“If you want to ignore a basic fact of urban life (commuting), I can’t reason with that. You can call it whatever you want, it’s definitely not planning unless you consider a no-growth philosophy as planning.”
It’s Aaron that ignores basic facts (commuting out of control), and who won’t apply basic planning principles to remedy commuting problems.
“If you don’t like what some planner types advocate, fine. Just don’t pretend it’s something else. And don’t insult my intelligence by telling me that your “logic” is so superior that it somehow goes “over my head”. It doesn’t.
Oh yes Aaron, the philosophy I practice, Regionalism, is clearly over your head.
When faced with common counter-argument, you cover your lack of comprehension by calling the principles I refer to here as something other than standard planning. You can’t honestly defend Old School planning notions as if your position is ‘authoritatively’ above question.
The California HSR project commission has decided to electrify existing Bay Area peninsula tracks rather than build a completely separate viaduct. It took 4 years for the commission to support MY recommendation from the start. Important stakeholders clamoring for 200mph trains wanted what they wanted, but now must settle for what can be built. Oh right, planning is something those with lousy plans can call something else.
After a survey of west portal option of Front Ave north of Burnside, I admit the portal and route more practical than Everett and beneath 1st Ave. Sooo, Ankeny Plaza Subway Station then West Portal beneath Morrison Bridgehead.
Absolutely Lowest Cost,
MAX Willamette River Tunnel,
from plannerishtic person,
certain not good enough for,
consideration from those whose,
bigger ideas are more problematic.
I’d prefer to put motor vehicles into tunnels and keep the streets for bikes, peds and transit, including rail. If PBOT increased the signal timing to 15 mph from 12 mph, MAX trains could see a 20% decrease in travel time thru downtown.
But the piece of data needed to evaluate the MAX tunnel idea is how much current (and potential)ridership goes through vs. to Downtown. If you are riding to Pioneer Sq station, then you need only suffer half the 23 or so minutes from Goose Hollow to Lloyd. Likewise, proposals to remove surface stations need to look at added dwell time as riders shift to other stations.
I remember when U6-7 replaced the #22 streetcar from the Univ. (Bokenhiem) to Frankfurt city center. Yes, it was a few minutes faster, but those blank walls sure did not measure up to the sunshine and people watching opportunities of the streetcar. And Frankfurters demanded that the FVV stop shutting down streetcar lines as U-Bahn lines were expanded.
‘d prefer to put motor vehicles into tunnels and keep the streets for bikes, peds and transit,
~~~>I think the business community would mount a revolution if that idea was ever put into place.
Over 80% of Portlanders use cars to get where they need to go. And that statistic will not be changing anytime soon.