This past Thursday, May 23rd, a community planning forum was held to present and discuss the current status of the SW Corridor, and solicit more community input. For those who didn’t attend, the materials have been posted on the project’s home page, and there is an online questionnaire for those who wish to add their two cents on the project.
Of some interest was this set of slides showing trade-offs of different routings, and this slide, giving preliminary cost and ridership estimates for different variations of the corridor. The relevant details are repeated after the jump:
The numbers
Capital costs:
- OHSU tunnel: $3.1B
- LRT to Tigard: $1.7B
- LRT to Tigard and Tualatin: $2.6B
- “Best performing BRT”: 50%-80% of LRT ($850M-$1.36B to Tigard, $1.3-$2.1B to Tualatin)
- “Mid performing BRT”: 40%-50% of LRT ($680M-$850M to Tigard, $1.0B-1.3B to Tualatin)
- “Lower-performing BRT”: < 40% of LRT
Ridership:
- LRT to Tigard: 22.5k
- BRT to Tigard: 20.1k
- BRT to Tualatin: 26.9k
- BRT to Sherwood (via Tigard and Tualatin): 28.9k
Operating cost/year:
- LRT to Tigard: $4.9M
- BRT to Tigard: $6.3M
- BRT to Tualatin: $7.5M
- BRT to Sherwood: $10.1M
A few caveats on the numbers:
- It is unclear whether the $3.1B for a tunnel is instead of a surface route, or in addition to it.
- Ridership and operating cost for other scenarios not listed, has not been modelled.
- I believe that ridership and op cost figures are the costs and ridership of the new service, and don’t take into affect changes to other services. (In other words, the ridership figures don’t appear to be all new riders, and some operational savings may be had from reducing redundant local service).
- Route to Sherwood is via Tualatin; a King City routing appears to be out of the picture at this point.
- A line to Tigard would terminate at Tigard TC; it is unclear where a Tualatin extension would end (the two logical places would be at Tualatin Station and at Meridian Park Hospital).
Thoughts
The immediate thought is that the capital costs, particularly for light rail or high-end BRT, are high. The distance between PSU and Tigard TC, with deviations to the Tigard Triangle and PCC-Sylvania, is about 10 miles, so the cost-per-mile for a surface LRT solution is actually a bit lower than PMLR. The West Hills cannot be an easy place to put a transit line–on the other hand, there’s no major bridge needed for this project (an extension to Tualatin may need a new crossing of the Tualatin River, but that’s far less of a big deal than a crossing of the Willamette. The distance of a route to Tualatin is nearly 15 miles. Assuming a higher-end BRT can be done for 2/3 the price, one could reach Tualatin for the same budget as LRT to Tigard, and still provide a high quality transit service.
Of course, these are all preliminary numbers; not a budget of the scope and accuracy that one would find in a DEIS or other advanced planning document. Unfortunately, preliminary numbers tend to be on the low side…
BRT would provide a few other opportunities–it supports branching service much better, and it’s easier to phase: Assuming the vehicles used aren’t too exotic, busses on a BRT going to Tigard can continue on surface streets to Tualatin if there isn’t enough funding to go all the way to Tualatin in one go–and likewise to Sherwood. By the same token, it may be possible for the 76 to use a new busway or bus lane between Tigard and Tualatin. (And while this isn’t in the works for the SW Corridor, a BRT between Beaverton, Washington Square, and Tigard is a tempting idea…)
The big question is–where and when will money come from to build anything on the scale of what is discussed above? And the second question–which I’ve asked several times before, but not really seen a satisfactory answer to–why have capital costs for this sort of thing skyrocketed, particularly in comparison to earlier MAX lines?
The floor is open.
67 responses to “Southwest Corridor Questionnaire”
I don’t believe the tunnel costs for a second. The 3 mile long Robertson Tunnel cost $184 million in 1996. Double that to account for inflation and it’s $368 million. And now Tri-Met says a tunnel no longer (and probably shorter) would cost $3.1 billion? No way.
How the hell does a this tunnel cost more than eight times as much (AFTER inflation) as the last one built?
It may just be that the consultants Tri-Met hired don’t have a freaking clue what they’re talking about. I spoke to one of the planners at the open house at Multnomah Arts Center last month and asked about the projected tunnel costs. When he told me the number, I didn’t believe it and asked why it cost so much more than the Robertson Tunnel? Then I needed to identify what the Robertson Tunnel was. He had no idea when it was built or what it cost, but said they were basing the numbers on the light rail tunnel in Seattle.
What makes more sense in evaluating a possible light rail tunnel under the west hills: to compare it to a tunnel under (among other things) the ship canal in Seattle, or to compare it to a light rail tunnel under the west hills just a couple of miles away?
Anybody have an idea what we’re paying the “What’s a Robertson Tunnel” expert?
It’s becoming more and more incredible that the impact of AV’s isn’t part of the decision process on these huge projects that aren’t likely to even get built before the technology becomes available. Multiple car manufacturers have publicly announced availability within the next 7 to 12 years.
Robotically controlled standard diesel 40′ buses should be cheaper to operate than autonomous LRT up to about 267 riders per unit time. MAX averages fewer than 200 rides per revenue hour, but is more cost effective at peak loading. Articulated buses should raise the breakeven point past MAX capacities but still below crush-loads. New propulsion systems would raise breakeven further. Buses also offer much shorter headway and the potential convenience of single seat service on and off guideways.
The big wake-up call should be the fact that even if a tiny fraction of registered automobiles were shared AV’s, the demand for off-peak transit service should implode, and roughly 7/10ths of all TriMet rides are off-peak.
The point is that unless transit projects would appeal to most car users off-peak, they need to be justified on peak use alone. An OHSU tunnel would have to be part of a project with significant off-peak utility.
This is really great – interesting comparisons here!
On the one hand, providing high capacity service to as many people as possible for a lower capital cost seems like a very desirable goal. And providing BRT service all the way to Sherwood would certainly do that.
On the other hand, actually building high-quality, separated and dedicated rail line to Tigard would be an enormous infrastructural asset to the Metro area. Although it wouldn’t serve as many people, it would provide a future jumping off point for a ‘future extension.’
One thing to consider is that BRT lines typically have much shorter lifespans than rail lines; many rail lines last 50 to 100 years, while many BRT lines have been shutdown after 10-20. Buses tend to destroy even custom-poured concrete guideways; traditional rail lines can be replaced using automated machinery if the transit agency isn’t stupid enough to cast everything in concrete ala a streetcar track-bed.
Lastly, the operating costs for light rail are far lower! That is a huge consideration – how long would BRT operate before the headways were reduced to 15/20 minutes??
If it’s three billion dollars, I doubt it will ever get built. People would rightfully reject such an overinflated cost, even if it ended being the 1.7 billion dollar surface alignment which is only ten miles. With that much money, we could put the Blue and Red lines underground from the Lloyd Center to Goose Hallow and likely have cash left over to renovate the stations along the Banfiled expressway and make them into something worthy instead of the ugly, cheery-as-Stalin’s-tomb, grimy things they are now. Maybe we could even fix up the signal priority on the transit mall.
With modern tunnel boring technology, I don’t see why a two mile tunnel would cost so much money with a station or two added in. It’s a shame, too, as it would be nice to see a SW corridor MAX line, though I wouldn’t turn my nose up to a BRT either. As long as the thing is fast and runs very frequently, I’m happy. Admittedly, I would worry about TriMet cutting frequencies over time. Look what they did to the so-called High Frequency network? They still insist on calling it that, pretending that it is frequent. It’s harder to justify bringing train frequencies down so far, let alone tearing it out. Then again, they did that to the streetcars all those decades ago…
They sure know how to dream big at Trimet planning headquarters.
Let’s see, last year they were starving for money cutting routes slashing benefits.
Earlier this year they said that 70% of service would be cut if the union doesn’t give up the blue cross blue shield.
Later this year they said all is well and there will be no service cuts or fare increases. (after they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar)But the ‘directors’ (term used loosely)all stated that there were ‘long term problems’.
And now we have cost estimates ranging in the billions for yet more expansion.
What planet are these technocrats living on cause it sure aint earth. Granted they live in an alternate reality where money is never a problem since they never actually have to work for any of it. It’s all tax revenues and you get the money good job or bad job. You can even get raises while the public gets less and pays more.
Why shouldn’t they dream big, they have nothing to lose.
Al,
At this point this is just a “What are the options” activity; there is no commitment to spend a dime on any of this.
I no longer trust anything that Tri Met or METRO comes up with. Even the nearly $1 billion just for BRT. Why?
Like a broken record, I’ll say it again: Look at Community Transit of Snohomish County. Sure, I know they had spent money on the SWIFT system. But $23 million for 26 110 passenger buses.
Sherwood and Tualatin already have a connecting highway and then that pours into I-5. It wouldn’t be crowded until you get to Tigard, and then they could just go down Barbur.
Like I have said, the CRC would just be the kickoff of multi billion dollar projects, if light rail continues. And, from the air quality standpoint, METRO’s figures show that only 14 percent of area GHG comes from “surface transport.” So how much will they save through LRT expansion, even at best estimates? Meanwhile the additional one million plus people will be burning energy every where they are. Businesses use a lot of energy, and homes, even using natural gas, put out a lot of CO2.
As long as you have significant population growth, trying to stem GHG by tweaking the transit system with multi billion dollar fixes is a losing proposition. So at least that justification for LRT should be off the table.
70% of all Trimet rides are off-peak? If true, that would be amazing. What times does Trimet consider as ‘peak hours,’ and how does this compare to other transit systems?
@Ron,
I guess it’s appropriate to say, given your namesake, “There you go again”. Once again you’re conflating BRT (Swift) and express bus (the Double-Talls).
I doubt that the Double Talls would be good at BRT in mixed traffic, because of the high center of gravity. But they’re a great way to move more people in an HOV lane express bus service, for sure. One gets nearly twice the people in the same lane-space.
The readership here is mostly pretty sophisticated transit followers. You embarrass yourself when you try to slide these slap-dash inaccuracies by at the service of some gold-flogger’s ideology.
According to Wikipedia, which is usually pretty reliable on things that can be counted, summed, or enumerated, Swift cost a total of $29 million, including the articulated buses it uses. It gets pretty good ridership but suffers from not directly serving Alderwood Mall and the Lynnwood TC.
I understand that $29 million for Swift is 1/100 of the total cost of the CRC and 1/30th of the LRT portion. You’re right, LRT across the Columbia River is very expensive. It won’t get C-Tran out of the express bus business, except for the 105. So we probably shouldn’t do it.
But neither should we increase the SOV capacity across the Columbia River so that more workers here can suck money out of the Oregon economy while driving in droves through other neighborhoods than yours.
And that seems to be the only alternative you and the M&M Chorus are willing to offer. If express buses are so great, why not offer to support them more?
What happens over and over with your pseudo-Libertarian claque is that once the expensive option for increased transit is rejected in favor of one of the “sensible alternatives”, then the guns swivel and all of a sudden “BRT” is infested with the same fevers and ills that LRT was until it was killed off.
No one in your group wants to grant lanes to make it work effectively or even invest the money to give it signal priority. It gets dumbed down to POBS (plain ol’ bus service) in whiffy streamlined buses.
Even in progressive Seattle that has been done to King County’s version of BRT, “RapidRide”.
The only way to get the priority that transit needs to shape and improve cities is by giving it exclusive ROW, and that is only done — and grudgingly at that — to LRT or better. That’s why transit advocates fight so hard for the technology.
Jarrett Walker covered Swift here: http://www.humantransit.org/2009/11/north-of-seattle-snohomish-countys-swift-bus-rapid-transit.html
“And that seems to be the only alternative you and the M&M Chorus are willing to offer. If express buses are so great, why not offer to support them more? ”
I don’t know if I’m in the M&M chorus, but apparently I get to take the heat for it.
Does “M&M” refer, in this case, to (conservative Clark County commissioners) Madore And Mielke?
One more comment on Swift: One reason that it is both a) cheap and b) rapid–is that a pair of BAT (business access & transit) lanes were installed on SR99–with little more than a can of paint. SR99, for much of this stretch, is a six-lane highway; the old routing of US99 made redundant as a long-haul route by the existence of I-5 to the east. At most (if not all) traffic lights along the road, the right lanes have big signs hanging over them–“right turn only (except bus)”. While BAT lanes are less effective than median-running bus lanes (busses still have to slow down for turning vehicles, and can get blocked behind cars wanting to turn but waiting for pedestrians), they allow the bus to scoot past traffic jams.
As has been noted previously, a cheap (certainly well less than the high nine figures, let alone billions with a B) way to get BRT from Tigard to Portland is to do the same to OUR SR99(W)–simply re-strip Barbur–one lane in each direction for cars, and one lane in each direction for transit and right turns. After all, there’s a perfectly good freeway just a block or two away…
Nick,
I got the number from a TriMet analyst several years ago. Specifically, he said that 18% of the ridership occurred in the peak evening two hours and 31% in the peak evening and morning two hour periods. I believe, but didn’t ask, that the numbers are for weekday rides only. Since some of the more heavily used services operate 20 hours or more daily, it would seem possible that the 16+ hours off-peak could account for about 2 1/4 as much ridership as the four peak hours. Weekend rides amount to over 20% of the weekly total.
I don’t remember which hours the analyst gave as “peak” and don’t know anything about other systems’ ridership patterns.
@Scotty,
Yes, “M&M” are Madore and Mielke. Their chorus can be found posting daily anti-CRC screeds in response to every morsel of news that appears on The Columbian’s website.
It can be a lawsuit from a new tenant in an industrial district objecting to an animal shelter that has been there for years, and they’ll find a reason to hate on MAX somewhere in the story.
One thing to consider is that BRT lines typically have much shorter lifespans than rail lines; many rail lines last 50 to 100 years, while many BRT lines have been shutdown after 10-20. Buses tend to destroy even custom-poured concrete guideways; traditional rail lines can be replaced using automated machinery
What BRT line was shut down in 10-20 years?
Meanwhile, LRT lines have no guarantee of success, Portland’s own record of past streetcar/interurban lines don’t bid well as well.
And exactly how do buses destroy concrete – is it poor craftsmanship of laying the concrete? There are concrete roads out there that have supported heavy haul trucks (that are twice the weight of a transit bus, if not more) that have held up for three or four decades without rebuilding. In fact, one of the smoothest parts of I-405 is actually a segment that is its original concrete from the early 1970s that was diamond-ground during a recent paving project, but was not repaved because the asphalt would reduce the vertical clearance under an overpass. So you’re driving on 40 year old concrete that feels like it was just poured two weeks ago. And it takes a pounding daily far, far greater than any busway will.
The issue with buses is that they only have two axles. A heavy truck will typically distribute its weight across multiple axles.
Does anyone know why we haven’t seen buses with more axles?
a cheap (certainly well less than the high nine figures, let alone billions with a B) way to get BRT from Tigard to Portland is to do the same to OUR SR99(W)–simply re-strip Barbur–one lane in each direction for cars, and one lane in each direction for transit and right turns. After all, there’s a perfectly good freeway just a block or two away…
And once you get into Tigard, then what?
Oregon 99W from I-5 to Oregon 217 is the busiest five lane state highway in the state of Oregon with 50,000 ADT per day. (In comparison, Canyon Road in Beaverton is around 40,000; Oregon 99E from Portland south to 17th Avenue carries about 55,000 vehicles but has two additional travel lanes.) Are you seriously going to funnel those 50,000 vehicles into just one travel lane in each direction?
And there’s not “a perfectly good freeway just a block or two away”…unless the moderators at Portland Transport are officially putting in their gung-ho support for Interstate 905 connecting Tigard, Newberg, McMinnville and Lincoln City. And, considering that despite Interstate MAX, the backups on I-5 northbound into transit-friendly North Portland routinely back up traffic well into S.W. Portland and even into Tigard, each and every workday…aren’t you North Portlanders supposed to be using MAX?
At this point this is just a “What are the options” activity
Then why are the options being restricted to “no build”, “BRT” and “light rail”?
If all this is is a “What are the options” activity, let’s see EVERY option available. Which can include the entire spectrum from “carsharing”, “carpools”, “express bus”, all the way up to “heavy rail” and “subway” (frankly, “subway” actually isn’t that bad of an option, albeit extremely expensive, but you have to go through a mountain anyways…)
Indeed, a good reason for artics over double-talls is artics generally have three axles or more. I’ve seen high-platform motor coaches with three axles; but I’ve never seen that on a (non-articulated) transit bus. As to “why” I suspect its a combination of:
a) additional axles take up low-floor space. It doesnt matter as much on a truck or trailer, but it matters greatly on a bus;
b) transit vehicles are tarriffed differently. TriMet is AFAIK exempt from weight-mile tax, or any other fee that commercial heavy vehicles pay to maintain the roads. If transit agencies did have to pay such taxes, particularly if axles were in the computation, you might see more three-axle busses on the road.
And once you get into Tigard, then what? Oregon 99W from I-5 to Oregon 217 is the busiest five lane state highway in the state of Oregon with 50,000 ADT per day. (In comparison, Canyon Road in Beaverton is around 40,000; Oregon 99E from Portland south to 17th Avenue carries about 55,000 vehicles but has two additional travel lanes.) Are you seriously going to funnel those 50,000 vehicles into just one travel lane in each direction?
No. The current proposed routing, according to the Metro stuff linked to above, has the line diverting from Barbur at Capitol Highway to serve PCC, then coming down Haines Street to Tigard Triangle, crossing 217 on Hunziker (or possibly a new crossing; something that has been discussed for a while), serving Tigard TC, and then going down Hall or 72nd to Tualatin. The “highway” portions of 99W not being affected. Obviously, the surface streets being considered don’t (at present) have extra lanes that can be repurposed for exclusive-transit use. At any rate, it appears (given the budget) that planners are instead considering building new lanes for a transitway, rather than re-purposing existing lanes. But that’s how Swift was done so cheaply.
Then why are the options being restricted to “no build”, “BRT” and “light rail”? Which can include the entire spectrum from “carsharing”, “carpools”, “express bus”, all the way up to “heavy rail” and “subway” (frankly, “subway” actually isn’t that bad of an option, albeit extremely expensive, but you have to go through a mountain anyways…)
Much of this has been looked at. There already is express bus in the corridor–as you certainly know, it suffers from frequently getting stuck in freeway traffic (and its transfers to other services could be improved), but it is there. Carsharing and such are good ideas, but orthogonal to mass transit projects–a carsharing system is not a replacement for a mass-transit line. Commuter rail was looked at–there’s a perfectly good rail line between Sherwood and downtown, after all–but do you want more WES?
I know we have an open public meeting system, but I don’t understand why Tri Met and METRO can’t simply consult population density maps and have some advisors calculate out some reasonable stops.
Even with extensive public input, is there any guarantee that future development will follow the restrictions determined during the input process? I suppose…. if future development is guided by the transportation decisions. But there could be a lot of disagreement on that in the future.
I don’t have time to go to a lot of meetings, and though I might have participated in the Sellwood Bridge CAC if asked, probably wouldn’t put much time in anything else. Does this mean I’m a bad citizen?
If Tri Met determines, by executive authority, fiat or whatever, that certain routes (assuming they are express) should stop in certain places, they can change it if the public complains a lot. The park and ride locations don’t take THAT much planning. And basically they are, in part, for the far flung inhabitants who need to drive to a lot before getting on transit.
I guess I’ll say it again: Why not combine Sherwood and Tualatin with one express line? Tigard is close enough in, it merits its own discussion.
ES has got it right. The lowest cost way to put HCT in the SW corridor is to take a lane on Barbur Blvd (99W) between SW 4th in downtown and Tigard.
No need to look to Everett, WA, just do what was done on N. Interstate Avenue. Regardless of vehicle type (LRT or BRT), “High Capacity Transit” must have an exclusive right of way in order to work…i.e attract and carry more riders.
It could be done for under a billion based on the Yellow Lines $350M pricetag ten years ago.
Of course there are objections to removing one lane in each direction for private motor vehicles…probably starting with ODOT and including “transit advocates” on this site. So the high cost of HCT here is due largely to the perceived need to keep all existing capacity in the corridor for PMVs. That is costly to say the least.
That said, I think OHSU must have a station, hence a tunnel is essential…you can’t just bypass the City’s largest employer and the region’s only research university. But it could be a shorter version, barely a mile in length from roughly Dunaway Park to the ravine just south of Hamilton. Barbur to route 10 is 5 lanes, so there is some room to accommodate transit ROW to the point where it emerges from the tunnel and keep four lanes there. I’m guessing here, but probably something like half of the traffic on Barbur north of route 10 comes off its ramp, so cutting it down to two lanes from there to Terwilliger would do little harm. In the Burlingame area, I would guess four lanes could be managed, narrowing again to two at Bertha and on out to West Portland aka Crossroads. Then its up Capitol Hwy to PCC and so on.
Might be an opportunity to reconnect route 10 to SW Salvin Road to Corbett; replace the overpass/ramp with a simple traffic signal. This would provide another option to John’s Landing, South Waterfront, etc.
For the end of the line, I still think the Bridgeport Village and/or Kruse Woods may make more sense than Tigard or Tualatin. The former has more retail traffic than either of the two “town centers”, and the latter is the most dense concentration of office/commercial employment in SW.
Only if the two town centers committed to zoning and planning that would speed higher density development would HCT be worthwhile. It may make more sense to serve those points with that other HCT need…replacing WES with an extention of the Red Line.
“It’s becoming more and more incredible that the impact of AV’s isn’t part of the decision process on these huge projects that aren’t likely to even get built before the technology becomes available.”
That’s because they’ll be banned after the first casualty. And there will be a first casualty.
“Multiple car manufacturers have publicly announced availability within the next 7 to 12 years.”
They’ve also announced flying cars and hydrogen cars. Are you driving a flying hydrogen-powered car?
Robot cars are going to be illegal for a very long time.
“Robot cars are going to be illegal for a very long time.”
Yeah, how do they determine who the operator is, if no one is behind the wheel? The registered owner?
“That’s because they’ll be banned after the first casualty.”
Highly unlikely. After all, if legislatures were panicked by fatalities into banning new technology, automobiles would never have been allowed in the first place (let alone aircraft) and we’d all still be traveling in horse-drawn buggies.
Robot cars are already being road-tested. Yes, they WILL be held to a standard of safety human beings can’t attain before they actually become fully street legal anywhere, and there will no doubt be a tremendous amount of press after the first fatality involving a robot car, even if the fatality is caused by human error.
But I doubt that a legislature that made them street-legal will be panicked into a ban after one fatal accident. By the time robot cars become legal, there will be a lot of lobbying money behind them. And who will be organized in opposition? Bus drivers and taxi drivers, obviously. Anyone else?
Most likely, there will be a state-by-state roll-out as to legal robot cars, and the first states will become practical beta test sites to work out any bugs. By the time the majority of states catch up, the statistical safety of the technology will be well-established.
I can’t predict a time-frame for this, though. Before AV’s become completely legal, they will need to got through a LOT of development to get them to 99.9% in a wide variety of driving conditions. Ten years is a possibility. But personally, I wouldn’t put money on it. I certainly wouldn’t make solid plans around a technology (even a highly probable one) that has yet to materialize.
For the end of the line, I still think the Bridgeport Village and/or Kruse Woods may make more sense than Tigard or Tualatin. The former has more retail traffic than either of the two “town centers”, and the latter is the most dense concentration of office/commercial employment in SW.
Under this logic, WASHINGTON SQUARE would be the logical end of the route – Kruse Way is DEAD on the weekends, and during the week is mostly small offices that lacks any kind of headquarters or large employer (and doesn’t really have that much employment compared to other areas), and Bridgeport Village is a Metro-inspired urban sprawl development that is widely removed from residential and office uses, and is basically our region’s attempt at a Beverly Hills style shopping center – I live just two miles from this place, and avoid it like the plague. The only reason I go near Bridgeport Village is because of REI (which has been there when Bridgeport Village was a rock quarry.)
Downtown Tigard might be the pits, but it is the geographic center of a community of nearly 50,000 residents. But of course to certain, to use his own phrasing, “transit advocates” on this site, those 50,000 residents just don’t exist because they don’t fit the mold of downtown Portland’s streetcar riders.
Put it this way: Kruse Way barely supports bus service on the otherwise forgettable 38 line. Bridgeport Village has the 76, the rush-hour 96, and a handful of winding Lake Oswego routes (36, 37, 38) that get very little service.
Downtown Tigard has the 12 (and by extension and TriMet politically created, 94 line), the 76/78 line (the 76 was supposed to become Frequent Service until TriMet maanagement squandered the money away for political projects), the 45 (which still runs seven days a week), and the 64 up to Marquam Hill; Washington Square has the 45, the very popular 62, the 76/78, and the 43. Plus the 92 skirts the mall and could easily serve it on a very short re-route. You tell me where transit is needed – “the most dense concentration of office/commercial employment in SW” that barely supports one rush-hour bus line, or Oregon’s largest shopping center, that is bookmarked by two very highly utilized office and light industrial areas that support many bus routes.
Bridgeport Village is a Metro-inspired urban sprawl development…
Actually not – Bridgeport is not part of the 2040 concept. The local communities changed their zoning in contradiction to the regional plan to get the property tax revenue the developer was dangling.
Washington Square on the other hand is a designated Metro Regional Center.
For the end of the line, I still think the Bridgeport Village and/or Kruse Woods may make more sense than Tigard or Tualatin. The former has more retail traffic than either of the two “town centers”, and the latter is the most dense concentration of office/commercial employment in SW.
Under this logic, WASHINGTON SQUARE would be the logical end of the route – Kruse Way is DEAD on the weekends, and during the week is mostly small offices that lacks any kind of headquarters or large employer (and doesn’t really have that much employment compared to other areas), and Bridgeport Village is a Metro-inspired urban sprawl development that is widely removed from residential and office uses, and is basically our region’s attempt at a Beverly Hills style shopping center – I live just two miles from this place, and avoid it like the plague. The only reason I go near Bridgeport Village is because of REI (which has been there when Bridgeport Village was a rock quarry.)
Downtown Tigard might be the pits, but it is the geographic center of a community of nearly 50,000 residents. But of course to certain, to use his own phrasing, “transit advocates” on this site, those 50,000 residents just don’t exist because they don’t fit the mold of downtown Portland’s streetcar riders.
Put it this way: Kruse Way barely supports bus service on the otherwise forgettable 38 line. Bridgeport Village has the 76, the rush-hour 96, and a handful of winding Lake Oswego routes (36, 37, 38) that get very little service.
Downtown Tigard has the 12 (and by extension and TriMet politically created, 94 line), the 76/78 line (the 76 was supposed to become Frequent Service until TriMet maanagement squandered the money away for political projects), the 45 (which still runs seven days a week), and the 64 up to Marquam Hill; Washington Square has the 45, the very popular 62, the 76/78, and the 43. Plus the 92 skirts the mall and could easily serve it on a very short re-route. You tell me where transit is needed – “the most dense concentration of office/commercial employment in SW” that barely supports one rush-hour bus line, or Oregon’s largest shopping center, that is bookmarked by two very highly utilized office and light industrial areas that support many bus routes.
the line diverting from Barbur at Capitol Highway to serve PCC, then coming down Haines Street to Tigard Triangle, crossing 217 on Hunziker (or possibly a new crossing; something that has been discussed for a while), serving Tigard TC, and then going down Hall or 72nd to Tualatin. The “highway” portions of 99W not being affected.
That “corridor” basically has “Streetcar” written all over it – since there’s far too many curves to be useful for light rail, and we all know Metro is dead set against bus service. It appears to be a mismash of the 78, 44 and 12 lines. Why would I, as a transit user, want to take a convoluted route like that as opposed to a straight-shot?
Much of this has been looked at. There already is express bus in the corridor–as you certainly know, it suffers from frequently getting stuck in freeway traffic
That might be true for the now-departed 95 line, and the 96 line, but the 94 only barely touches I-5 (and only to effectively deal with the miserable I-5 off-ramp to 99W that prefers I-5 traffic over Barbur traffic).
But there is absolutely no discussion of, what is often negatively derided as “BRT-Lite” improvements, such as additional queue-jumper lanes and traffic light prioritization, additional lanes, rush hour HOV lanes (that would benefit buses and carpools), or even a Los Angeles style “Rapid” overlay line.
It’s this-or-that. BRT, or Light Rail. In reality, there are a dozen different options available. Why should politicians bought by the light rail mafia be allowed to narrow down the choices – it’s clear Metro is biased, so maybe we need an independent group involved.
@Douglas K,
I believe the primary opposition to “robot cars” will come from the right, not the left as is often assumed. Once autonomous vehicles become common, urban roadways will rapidly be modified to give them priority over human operated ones. First they’ll probably be allowed in HOV lanes, but then as their population increases they’ll need another and another lane dedicated to them, because a lane populated entirely by them will flow much more efficiently and effectively than a shared one.
In an AV-only lane, there would be no jerks driving on the shoulder, tailgating in their big rigs threateningly, cutting in front and jamming on the brakes to fit in a tiny hole in the traffic. That will make life smooth and predictable for the AV’s. They can even communicate with one another to form virtual “trains” of closely spaced vehicles.
So the “gear-heads” will rebel at eventually having to drive in a single lane controlled by the slowest vehicle and beset by right turn slow-downs. They may eventually even being excluded from some heavily used facilities once AV’s become nearly pervasive.
Autonomous vehicles will be seen by the gear-head community as the “Agenda 21” of the automotive world.
That “corridor” basically has “Streetcar” written all over it – since there’s far too many curves to be useful for light rail, and we all know Metro is dead set against bus service.
Streetcar has (at this point) been discarded as an option. And according to the grapevine, the primary advocate for keeping LRT as an option is the City of Portland–there are many involved in the process who would have dropped it as well.
But there is absolutely no discussion of, what is often negatively derided as “BRT-Lite” improvements, such as additional queue-jumper lanes and traffic light prioritization, additional lanes, rush hour HOV lanes (that would benefit buses and carpools), or even a Los Angeles style “Rapid” overlay line.
It seems there is–numerous different levels of BRT have been mentioned, but the public outreach documents at this point have been a bit unclear as to what exactly BRT means. That’s likely due to the early stage of the planning process–as things get refined more, we’ll know more. Of course, much of what you suggest are good ideas, and are standard bus service in places outside of North America,
It’s this-or-that. BRT, or Light Rail. In reality, there are a dozen different options available. Why should politicians bought by the light rail mafia be allowed to narrow down the choices – it’s clear Metro is biased, so maybe we need an independent group involved.
The project participants are Metro, TriMet, Multnomah County, Washington County, and the cities of Portland, Tigard, Beaverton, Durham, King City, Tualatin, and Sherwood–what “independent group” do you think ought to be running the show, and how would they be selected?
“….the primary advocate for keeping LRT as an option is the City of Portland–there are many involved in the process who would have dropped it as well.”
>>>> And I’m REALLY starting to believe that the gov’t of Portland city proper IS under the control of developers.
Branching “Open” BRT makes the most sense for this corridor. Exclusive or BAT lanes on Barbur could be used by bus lines coming in from Sherwood, Tualatin, Washington Square, Beaverton…and on and on. While it would be great to have a tunnel for OHSU, I don’t think it’s worth a couple billion dollars by any stretch (unless they want to pay for it!). Just run a shuttle, or a funicular, or have people cross the Gibbs street bridge to the aerial tram.
The cost of a tunnel is so high because tunneling has become really expensive recently. No one seems to be sure why, but deep-bore tunnel machines are insanely expensive to buy and operate. Look at the deep-bore tunnel highway about to start in Seattle, or the ones already being dug for light rail, or the subway being dug in New York. They all cost billions for short segments. For whatever reason, you can’t just take the West-side MAX tunnel cost and multiply by inflation. From what I’ve read, costs in Europe are much lower, but again, the reasons are mysterious.
“The cost of a tunnel is so high because tunneling has become really expensive recently. ”
Now that WDOT actually will own it own machine, will this affect costs?
Perhaps there have been some new safety regulations that make working in tunnels slower, and thus more expensive. It seems that if a DOT owns a machine, then the labor costs per hour or day shouldn’t be higher than for other activities. Except for the added burden on high risk work.
I would like to know what is behind this rise in estimates. I can say that in other types of construction work, it looks like the contractors are making a killing. New urban condos are much simpler, i.e. bare bones style, but the costs per sq. ft are really high.
Most of this alignment is within the City of Portland, so we should have a lot of input on what is done in the SW Corridor. Since the 70’s light rail has been endorsed by every mayor; all three recent candidates supported it in the last election. And not without reason; it has changed Portland for the better over the last 30 years.
Bus service should be improved in all the ways noted above, especially Frequent Service lines…signal preemption, bypass lanes, better stops, ets. But don’t confuse that with “High Capacity Transit;” HCT needs to attract and carry more riders at an affordable price. Reliability, frequency and to a lesser extent speed are essential for HCT to attract “choice riders,” which is the key measure of success. Only exclusive ROW gets you that. The other source of new riders is more dense development of housing, jobs, retail destinations. BRT on the cheap does not do the trick.
“The other source of new riders is more dense development of housing, jobs, retail destinations.”
And along with that, inflation, and little choice but corporate built housing.
On the surface, branching brt makes the most sense.
But if its gonna cost 2B plus for brt, I’d much rather get lrt for just a bit more.
I don’t buy the BRT numbers any more than I buy the LRT tunnel costs. As others have noted, there are a lot of fairly inexpensive ways to get BRT service, some as simple as exclusive and/or HOV lanes along key segments. We’re looking at truly insane amounts of money for what should be fairly straight-forward projects using off-the-shelf technology. Nothing in the Southwest Corridor would be like the “first of its kind” OHSU Aerial Tram.
The cost of a tunnel is so high because tunneling has become really expensive recently. No one seems to be sure why, but deep-bore tunnel machines are insanely expensive to buy and operate. Look at the deep-bore tunnel highway about to start in Seattle, or the ones already being dug for light rail, or the subway being dug in New York. They all cost billions for short segments.
Apples and oranges. Different geology. Water tables. Massive amounts of infrastructure under the street to work around. And that was my point. I still say: look at the Robertson Tunnel. It’s the closest thing I can think of to a light rail tunnel under Marquam Hill. The 3-mile Robertson Tunnel, under my inflation-adjusted calculation, cost around $122 million per mile. And that was with 80% cost overruns due to unforeseen geological problems.
Besides, we have another local tunneling model: the Big Pipe Project. $1.4 billion for 13 miles of pipe, and finished just a couple of years ago. That’s $107 million per mile, roughly.
So I’m not convinced by tunneling costs in Seattle or NYC, and I continue to question tunnel estimates significantly in excess of $120-$130 million per mile. I don’t believe for a second that tunneling got seven or eight times more expensive in the past two or three years. And I question the competence of planners who rely on far-flung projects rather than drawing on reasonably comparable local ones in setting cost estimates.
From what I’ve read, costs in Europe are much lower, but again, the reasons are mysterious.
Fine. Let’s figure it out, then do what they do.
Under this logic, WASHINGTON SQUARE would be the logical end of the route
That would be my preference. Whether it’s BRT or LRT, I’d like to see the downtown-to-Tigard TC line continue on to end at Washington Square.
I also think the tunnel estimates are absurd; but I think it is pretty clear that this won’t be a light rail line. I would love to see them go for it, and put the line on the ballot in Tigard and Portland. If the voters approve it, then go for it.
I think we will end up with BRT, though, due to budget issues. I would personally like to see the outer lanes of Barbur turned into BRT/Bike lanes, with a buffer zone allowing the busses to overtake cylists. The facilities on Barbur now are not great, so this would benefit both modes.
the only way I can read that right is $0.5 billion for the tunnel. I think the info given was short-named as: LRT w/ tunnel to Tualatan $3.1, surface LRT to Tigard $1.7, surface LRT to Tualatan $2.6. I think they, that is whoever actually made the slide, purposely made it confusing to push BRT. my 2 cents.
@Ron,
The machine “WDOT will own” is not for trains. It is for highways.
It makes BIG holes in the ground. It takes lots of dirt out for every foot it digs.
See the TBM dig. Dig, TBM, Dig!
P.S.
“budget issues” are bogus. Interest rates are at all time lows, there is plenty of federal resources for high quality projects, and we still have over 7% unemployment.
BRT carries fewer riders at higher operating costs; now that doesn’t help much.
Local match would have to be a vote of the entire TriMet district as in ’94 and ’98. It would be a close vote, but Multnomah and Washington county could carry it. If it fails, repaint some buses and call it good. If it passes and Tigard demours, then go to Bridgeport and Kruse Woods, and Tigard can take the bus.
@Anandakos:”The machine “WDOT will own” is not for trains. It is for highways.”
I guess we’ll have to forget about a tunnel to OHSU, then. I was thinking the short tunnel suggestion might be good. Thanks for correcting me.
Sarcasm aside, in answer to your point,I would like to see how a west side strategy without a new bridge would actually play out? Seems like sooner or later it would be needed. And, as far as I know, METRO can’t determine how much the population grows in Washington, or California, so how much more interstate traffic can two routes handle?
However, I do have a ringside seat in my SE Portland neighborhood to judge what is happening here, despite the $2 billion recently apportioned for this area. The main street (Tacoma) is getting worse for traffic, and even when the Milwaukie MAX finally gets up and running, I am convinced that surface traffic originating from the suburbs and using this as the only cross-Willamette route for over ten miles, will only get worse. Exactly the opposite of the neighborhood’s plan.
Oops. Somebody forgot to account for the Real World.
Likewise, I would like to see some actual figures for a Clark County light rail system that would actually get a good portion of the 430,000 residents. I doubt that the multi billion dollar expense for the 1.5 mile spur, as it is proposed, will accomplish that much. So how many Billions to connect the other towns, eastward and northward both?
It appears that now that planners are considering BRT for the Southwest Corridor, an anti-BRT petition is being circulated for the November ballot in Tigard. Last fall, Tigard passed a measure (similar to one in Clackamas County, but sanely drafted) requiring a public vote for city funding of any light-rail projects. Now, petitioners–led by none other than one Arthur Crino, who appears to be a high-ranking officer in (you guessed it!) the John Birch Society–are seeking to remedy that oversight, and want to similarly collar BRT as well.
Fun…..
@Scotty,
Exactly! The wingers are all about how GREAT BRT is until higher capacity systems are killed. Then the guns are turned on BRT and it is suddenly afflicted with all the same fevers and plagues that LRT is.
A despicable bunch of lying, anti-human scoundrels, truly.
@Ron,
[Moderator: Personally directed remarks removed–ES] Nobody is proposing extending LRT beyond Clark College. The thirty-year plan for transit in Clark County calls for BRT on Fourth Plain (first), then Mill Plain then Highway 99.
That’s IT![Moderator: More personally-directed remarks removed–ES]
Wow, some people in Tigard apparently love being stuck in traffic on 99W… on the plus side, at least a good portion of the population down there will now have to learn what BRT is.
[Moderator: Reference to above personally-directed remark removed — ES]
” Nobody is proposing extending LRT beyond Clark College. ”
That isn’t what Sponsor Council member Steve Horowitz told me. I asked him about three years ago at a meeting at the EXPO center, how much good the 1.5 mile spur would do. He said it would just be the beginning. So, unless things have changed, which they may have, that at least was the plan.
Ok, I will drop the “appearance of sarcasm.” However I insist upon making two points.
1. I do go around my Sellwooood neighborhood on foot, by bike and by car, and have to cross Tacoma frequently. It is getting worse, and when Clackamas County has another growth spurt will get worse yet. Plus there are some bike apartments going in. Yet the MAX station will be 1/2 mile from the main street. So between the MLR (at 1.5 billion) and the Sellwood Bridge at (300 million) we will still have worsening traffic on SE Tacoma. The only way to have seriously reduced it would have been an express tunnel under TAcoma St. But they are too anti-car and not far sighted enough to entertain this, even though in the Real World, the population growth will outstrip the attractability of MAX.
2.Also because METRO doesn’t regulate things outside of its boundarie, the cities of Washington County are smelling economic opportunity and helping companies locate there ( I know some of it is within METRO) I worked there (at Fab 5 and D1B) in the earlier growth spurt, and this is where are present Interstate 5 problems have originated. So if people think traffic on the I-5 is heavy now, just wait until Intel and Nike, their competitors, and every spinoff business that contributes into the WashCo tax base moves in. Even with widening of the NNE Quadrant, and (gasp) the CRC the I-5 will be very crowded, which North Portland residents don’t like, and the downtown core will be even more choked with traffic. What happens in another twenty years when they go into Phase Three of the Silicon Forest? Trust me execs and company managers don’t want to arrive at their next meeting soaked in rain from a bike ride.
The Western Arterial would ultimately be needed. The treehuggers need to adapt. We’ve got so many trees around here they are rotting and falling in the roadway. Western Oregon is never going to run out of trees, I guarantee it. I cut the ones in my yard back every few years, and my neighbors worry that my big cedar might fall on their house in a big windstorm.
If this “public transportation is of the debbil” measure makes it on the ballot and actually passes, just build the corridor as far as Barbur TC… or as tantalizingly close to the Tigard city limits as possible.
OK. I give up. Build your damn freeways and be damned yourselves.
Extend Streetcar thru John’s Landing, across the Sellwood Bridge, out Tacoma to the new MLR station.
What’s missing is the Clackamas county bridge over the Willamette between Oak Grove and Lake Oswego.
Oh, and put tolls on the Sellwood Bridge and everyone who registers their vehicle in Multnomah county gets free use.
I think Ron is on to the right idea with the tunnel through Sellwood idea, but the tunnel is in the wrong place. Since the majority of the bridge commuters are from Clackamas County, that’s where we should put a second bridge. This one would connect directly to HWY 224 via a tunnel under Waverly. I’m sure they won’t put up much of a fight….
What’s missing is the Clackamas county bridge over the Willamette between Oak Grove and Lake Oswego.
It will never happen. Unfortunately, the biggest missing piece in our highway network is a link between 224 and 217. Looking at a map, I wonder if the plan was to link them originally as one highway through Lake Oswego. Oh well, it will never happen.
“Extend Streetcar thru John’s Landing, across the Sellwood Bridge, out Tacoma to the new MLR station.
What’s missing is the Clackamas county bridge over the Willamette between Oak Grove and Lake Oswego.
Oh, and put tolls on the Sellwood Bridge and everyone who registers their vehicle in Multnomah county gets free use.”
Lenny, that’s exactly what I thought.
And I agree with Chris I that a bridge in Lake Oswego would have been better—Oak Grove Bv to Foothills Dr. And tunnel under downtown LO to the west just outside of downtown. I think this could still be done now, but if Foothills Dr gets a big building project it would be much harder to do.
But I do think the Sellwood bridge could have been rehabbed ( it has an extraordinary amount of concrete that could be replaced with lighter elements, yet two substantial steel trusses as well) and the saved money used to put some of the traffic underground.
But I guess we are stuck with what we have. I wonder if the neighborhood association (which I sometimes go to) will wake up in a few years and say “There’s too much traffic on Tacoma. What do we do?” We already are hearing plans to block off some streets from cut through traffic.
And Chris, one more point that would have favored a Tacoma Street tunnel (that urbanists should like, too) is that the blocks around Tacoma and SE McLoughlin should go to high density with towers. Johnson Creek could be turned into a very nice greenway connecting these and could extend southward to Milwaukie City Center. There would probably also be views of the Willamette. If these could be mixed with commercial use, you would get above the highway noise and most train noise by floor six or seven. These could go both north and south of the Springwater trail, plus be on the MAX line. I’ve seen one other local planner proposing this, but it doesn’t seem to get much traction at SMILE. But maybe will in the future.
I also thought the West Shore trolley could have branched across the Sellwood bridge and gone down to this area, too. Maybe the OPRR would have agreed to make a few passenger runs to OMSI in the morning and afternoon. And use express buses on 99e to Oregon City.
Woulda, coulda, shoulda
Looking at a map, I wonder if the plan was to link them originally as one highway through Lake Oswego. Oh well, it will never happen.
I’m not aware of any such plans, but the original route of I-205 was to go through Lake Oswego and Milwaukie, not West Linn and Oregon City.
Anandakos, I don’t think there is much chance of an i-205 type freeway being built nowadays, it would be far too expensive. Yet a four lane highway is vastly different. Since my idea is a substantial shortcut, it should attract other users, making mass transit easier and within connecting distance of the West Side Bike Trail. In fact, alternative travelers don’t merely assess what other paths may be available to them: they assess overall distance and general safety, too. So there is no reason to prefer one mode over the other apart from these other factors.
Relating that to the Milwaukie Light Rail, It seems with the type of property that it goes through there are some “dead spots” where there would not be an opportunity for higher density. And for those close in—i.e. north of Holgate—-aren’t we trying to encourage other means of travel, in those very close in neighborhoods? I think the MLR will do better than the Yellow line, but don’t see it as being very popular, w/o a connection to Oregon City.
Now to the trees :). Falling trees in the area caused a lot of trouble this last week. Cottonwood tree knocked out several power poles.
http://www.kgw.com/video?id=209320291&sec=547757
The trees in the school grounds across from me have already broken the sidewalk in numerous places, so there will be more money spent for repairs. My neighbors trees leave patches of leaves in my yard, killing the grass, and then the weeds start.
We’re never going to run out of trees around here. People don’t trim them back over the roads so the trucks knock the brances off, scratching the sides. We have people planting trees on the parking strip with branches that could put someone’s eye out.
It’s easy to make urban trees sound bad when you list all of the drawbacks and none of the benefits… you make them sound like a scourge on our fair city.
Does that make Friends of Trees some kind of terrorist organization?
Regarding tunnel costs…
Bids for Sound Transit light-rail tunnel project well below estimate
Of course, it will be a few years before we know if the bids match reality. But this is the sort of project which seems more comparable to a Southwest Corridor transit tunnel than the current Seattle automobile tunnel project.
Regarding trees…
A few years ago, someone who regularly commented here suggested, apparently without a hint of irony, that street trees facilitated crime, because criminals could hide behind them.
Well sure…pave everything and be safe.
re the Yellow Line: considering it does not yet get to Vancouver, WA, it carries three times the number of riders on the old 5 bus, and bit by bit Interstate Avenue is emerging from decades of decline. There is something worth stopping for at every stop on the Yellow Line from Albina/Mississppi to Expo.
Assuming the bids listed in the Puget Sound Business Journal project turn out to be real, it puts the projected tunnel cost at $129 million to $152 million per mile. Pretty much in line with the estimates I derived from the Robertson Tunnel and the Big Pipe.
So how does Tri-Met figure the OHSU tunnel will come in $3.1 billion? Because it looks to me that if you assume $150 million per mile, plus $100 million on average for an underground station, $3 billion would get you a twelve mile tunnel with a station every mile.
“Does that make Friends of Trees some kind of terrorist organization?”
This is a joke, isn’t it?
No, but it might relegate them to the “excessive zeal” category.
Yes, we all know that trees are good. However, one thing the Northwest is not going to run out of is trees. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if the growth we have now, from lots of deciduous trees, shrubbery and second growth, isn’t doing more for the air than old growth did. Old growth trees don’t have a lot of canopy area for their size, and there isn’t a lot of vegetation on the floor of an old growth forest.
“Well sure…pave everything and be safe.”
Did I say that? You are trying to put words in my mouth.
One more post on tunnel costs.
The Los Angeles Metro Purple Line extension is budgeted at $6.3 billion. That’s a nine mile long subway — full subway, not LRT — with seven huge, expensive underground stations and built largely beneath Wilshire Boulevard (significant utility relocation and impact mitigation required). And it still comes in around $700 million per mile.
Unless Tri-Met is planning a 3 mile tunnel with three or four large, elaborate stations built to LA subway standards, I don’t see how a $3 billion tunnel estimate is even remotely realistic.
As I mentioned when I filled out the questionnaire, a multicorridor solution is the best fit for SW as the major destinations aren’t laid out in a linear fashion. LRT with an underground Pill Hill station would be great, but I’m unsure as to where the south tunnel portal should be (and like previous posters I find the $3.1B tunnel price tag suspect… methinks the estimate is for the entire line but that fact was conveniently omitted).
Also, I envision a couple of Downtown-to-Tualatin express bus lines (not necessarily BRT):
1) Barbur – Multnomah Blvd – Oleson Rd – Hall Blvd – Upper Boones Ferry
Major stops include: Burlingame, Multnomah Village, Garden Home, Washington Square, Tigard
2) Barbur – Capitol Hwy – Kerr Pwky – Lower Boones Ferry
Major stops include: Burlingame, West Portland, PCC Sylvania, Lake Grove, Bridgeport
It’s pretty easy to see on Google Earth where the major centers are. I know Washington Square is a popular destination. But it seems simply linking Sherwood and Tualatin together (via the Tualatin-Sherwood Rd) plus Washington Square and then using I-5 to get to Portland is a no-brainer. I suppose on off peak runs a stop in Tigard and Barbur BV Transit Center and then via Barbur to downtown would be an alternative. But I think Sherwood and Tualatin would get enough riders for an express bus service, alone.
If the area takes a different direction in development a bus route can be changed. This is what could have been done on 99E instead of the MAX: simply extend the express the line to Oregon City.
How much brains does it take to plan out mass transit? Or are we supporting the careers of “facilitators” for the public?
At this morning’s steering committee meeting, Metro staff clarified that the extra cost for the tunnel was $700,000,000.
$700 million for a three to four mile tunnel, including the cost of the OHSU station? That sounds plausible as the full cost of a tunnel, given the numbers I mentioned above. But I don’t know about “extra” cost, as in “over and above a surface alignment.” In that case, it still sound really high.