Southwest Corridor takes one more step forward


At a Metro Council work session on Tuesday, June 11, the project steering committee presented some draft recommendations to the Metro Council. The recommendations are still in draft at this point, and the Council took no action, but here’s what did get recommended, based on prior work and community feedback:

  • HCT corridor should stretch (eventually) from Portland to Tualatin via Tigard.
  • Both BRT and LRT are advanced for further consideration, and that BRT (if chosen) have at least 50% of the route running an exclusive right-of-way. (This is a minimum threshold for BRT projects to receive federal New Starts funding). Decision as to mode and alignment are expected by mid-2014 in order to start work on DEIS.
  • Enhancements to local transit are also recommended. In 2013-14, TriMet will develop the Southwest SEP (Service Enhancement Plan).
  • A $4 billion list of roadway, pedestrian, bike, and local transit enhancement projects proposed earlier was reduced to a $500M list of higher priority projects. Potential big-ticket items include rebuilding Naito Parkway between Barbur and Lincoln (getting rid of the last vestiges of the old 99), redesigning the Barbur/Capitol/I-5 interchange, and a new crossing of OR217 between 99W and SW 72nd.
  • Trail, park, and environmental mitigation projects were also identified.

The Steering Committee’s draft recommendations can be read here. The report starts at page 41 (the link is to a meeting packet; the first forty minutes contains the agenda of the work session and stuff relevant to other business).


23 responses to “Southwest Corridor takes one more step forward”

  1. It’s a pie-in-the-sky suggestion, but I think that public-private partnerships should be considered to put a lid over I-5 near the station areas, to expand the amount of land in the station area for TOD. For those stations adjacent to I-5, this actually could be a big deal in terms of the % increase in station-adjacent developable land. Of course, the costs would be high, but it should be worth considering, likely as a part of long-term corridor phasing plans…

  2. Garlynn

    Thats def pipe dream. No way that is cost effective without central city densities.

    Capping 5 at rose qtr, east side, and 405 are possibilities, but would require massive investment in order to make sense.

    Spending 3 billies on the Saw corridor makes a hell of a lot more sense than spending 5b on the CRC.

    50% segregated BRT will cost nearly as much as LRT. BRT is DOA

  3. I thought Trimet was done expanding after MLR?
    I guess that was a stupid assumption.
    I’m not gonna read the document but does it tell you where the money for this is going to come from?

  4. “I’m not gonna read the document but does it tell you where the money for this is going to come from?”

    Breeding the unicorn herd, I suppose.

  5. Two surveys open now through June 26

    Metro and the communities in the southwest corridor invite you to participate in two surveys open now through June 26. Your input matters and will be shared with decision-makers in early July.

    Learn more about the Southwest Corridor Plan.

    Take a brief survey on the high capacity transit options.

    Review the draft recommendation.

    Take a brief survey and tell us what you think of the draft recommendation.

    Have questions about the draft recommendation? Join us at the final community planning forum before the steering committee’s July decision.

    Community Planning Forum

    6 to 8 p.m. on Wednesday, June 26

    Tigard Library, 13500 SW Hall Blvd, Tigard

  6. •Both BRT and LRT are advanced for further consideration, and that BRT (if chosen) have at least 50% of the route running an exclusive right-of-way. (This is a minimum threshold for BRT projects to receive federal New Starts funding).

    This is a false argument, that federal funding is not available unless there is 50% dedicated right-of-way.

    While the “New Starts” program would not be applicable, TriMet could still acquire new high capacity buses under Section 5309 grants, and improved bus stops under Section 5318 grants. Two programs that TriMet inexplicably does not apply for, yet nearly every other transit agency routinely uses to keep their bus fleets modernized and up-to-date. (And not consisting of largely 17-23 year old buses.)

  7. “This is a false argument, that federal funding is not available unless there is 50% dedicated right-of-way.”

    Righto. Community Transit of Snohomish County used a federal stimulus grant, combined with Washington regional mobility grant, to fund 89 pc. of their Double Tall fleet. $23 million under both sources for the fleet of 26 buses, which will outperform light rail, and cost about 3 percent.

    I think liberals in Oregon just make this stuff up, because groups like the Building Trades Council tells them to.

  8. Hello again;

    Another Alignment Suggestion:

    Has anyone considered using part of the Portland & Western Right of Way for part of the alignment to connect with Tualatin? Either route (SW 72nd or SW Hall Blvd) could connect to the P&W line at SW Durham RD and continue into Tualatin. It would seem a better approach than destroying SW Boones Ferry Rd.

    And as secondary suggestion connect the P&W (Oregon Electric) rail line with P&W (Tillamook) rail line with a southern connection. This does 3 things:

    1.Opens up the possibility of commuter rail to travel from Tualatin to Milwaukie via Lake Oswego.
    2.Cuts down on the mileage that the P&W need to go in order to go north/south. Currently a train needs to go out Cornelius Pass out to Banks and back to Beaverton in order to head south (or Reverse).
    3.Offers an emergency route for the Amtrak Cascades if something were to happen to the Union Pacific route (Brooklyn Subdivision).

    Any thoughts?

  9. Has anyone considered using part of the Portland & Western Right of Way for part of the alignment to connect with Tualatin? Either route (SW 72nd or SW Hall Blvd) could connect to the P&W line at SW Durham RD and continue into Tualatin. It would seem a better approach than destroying SW Boones Ferry Rd.

    Commuter rail was considered early in the process, and dropped as an option.

    If you meant, instead, repurposing the P&W ROW for light rail or a busway–the ROW is still used for freight service (and WES). Under the current federal regulations, you can’t mix light rail and heavy rail on the same tracks, and you certainly can’t add busses to the mix…

    Also, it’s no big deal for Portland-Wilsonville freights to reverse in Tigard. There’s plenty of passing sidings, modern locomotives can just as easily run backwards as forwards, and if a loco does need to actually turn around, there is a wye in Beaverton, just south of Griffith Park (much of it under OR217). A southern connection in Tualatin may be a good idea, but it’s not necessary for freight trains to get from Wilsonville to Milwaukie.

  10. [Moderator: Playing around with Ron’s name removed. Knock it off. – Bob R.]

    I’m going to jump in here because [Ron] is playing fast and loose wit’ da troot’ (sic) again. The Double Talls were gotten for CT by Senator Murray (yeah, that same devious, CRC backing Senator we have on the Finance Committee). As [Ron], they were a part of the stimulus package.

    But in fact that simply means that they are not germane to a discussion of whether a New Starts BRT line needs 50% reserved ROW or not. In fact, the grant had nothing to do with any standard FTA program at all.

    Here in Clark County the Senator got us our nice hybrids in the same appropriation.

    Thank you, Aunt Patty.

  11. We weren’t discussing whether a New Starts BRT needs reserved ROW. We were discussing whether long distance bus services need to be funded under New Starts. The answer is an emphatic NO. And Erik H, says that there are normal federal funding sources for buses; maybe not, however, with the same coverage as the one to CT (45 pc)

  12. Has anyone considered using part of the Portland & Western Right of Way for part of the alignment to connect with Tualatin? Either route (SW 72nd or SW Hall Blvd) could connect to the P&W line at SW Durham RD and continue into Tualatin. It would seem a better approach than destroying SW Boones Ferry Rd.

    Yes. I did, back before Metro and TriMet screwed everything up with WES.

    TriMet COULD have had a Portland-Tualatin light rail line, running on Barbur south to Burlingame, then Multnomah to Garden Home, then SW to Washington Square, then using the Oregon Electric ROW through Tigard ending at Tualatin-Sherwood Road (where the current Tualatin WES station is).

    If anyone has their history books out, you’d know that this actually replicates the old routing of the Oregon Electric route from downtown Portland to Tigard (specifically, Greton). (Although technically Barbur Boulevard was the Red Electrics – the OE used what is now I-5.)

    Meanwhile, the P&W would get a new connection from the OE near Avery Street, north to the Westside District along Herman Road. The nice part of this – Tualatin-Sherwood Road would also get a railroad crossing eliminated, since the new route would require an overpass.

    The problem? We built WES, so the Washington Square-Tualatin segment is no longer available for light rail use. Then, we fully developed the area in the western part of Tualatin in the last five years. Where there used to be available, undeveloped land to build a new railroad track is more new-build, empty tip-up concrete wall warehouses.

    My proposal would have connected Portland, with two communities that were built around the Oregon Electric Railroad (Multnomah Village and Garden Home) and to this day are ideal transit oriented communities that predate any of the fake crap TriMet/Metro promotes along MAX (Orenco Station), plus the Metro-designated regional center called Washington Square, and then downtown Tigard and downtown Tualatin.

    Instead, we wasted $165 million, plus $10 million a year, on WES. And Oregon 217 is still a traffic nightmare. And TriMet’s 94 bus still carries far more riders than WES, using crappy 23 year old buses, at a cost a tiny fraction of WES, even though it has to pay TriMet employees rather than employees of a Connecticut company and those horrible fringe benefits and healthcare costs that TriMet drivers get.

  13. @Ron,

    You and Erik H. are apparently having your own conversation, and that’s just dandy.

    But the context of this conversation (e.g., the one in the post) is at the top of the page, saying specifically

    Southwest Corridor takes one more step forward

    The Southwest Corridor discussion is in fact exactly concerned with the decision to propose BRT or LRT on one of several possible alignments.

    So trotting the poor, exhausted Double Talls out of their paddock for the obligatory prance around the arena is little more than hand-waving.

  14. 217 will always be a traffic nightmare, even if you were to widen it to 4 lanes. Transit doesn’t prevent traffic; it provides options.

  15. “So trotting the poor, exhausted Double Talls out of their paddock for the obligatory prance around the arena is little more than hand-waving.’

    They seem to be happy with them, are projecting a 25 pc. ridership increase and have 17 more on order. Oh yeah, some really backwards city called “London” uses them, too.

  16. Ron,

    I’ve nothing against double-tall busses, or any vehicle type, for that matter.

    Their primary benefits are in the following applications:

    * Express bus routes that need a higher capacity. (Including Snohomish’s use thereof).
    * Service in cities where passenger counts are high, streets are narrow, and curb space is at a premium: (Both London and Hong Kong qualify, as does Berlin; though HK also uses conventional 13m busses and mini-busses extensively as well).
    * Poor regions which buy whatever used busses they can; there are plenty of old Routemasters in many African cities, for instance.
    * Places which have a current or former history of British governance (and some institutional preference for doubles), or which have a strong desire to promote a British-looking aura for the tourists. (Victoria BC comes to mind as an obvious example; it runs doubles through and to downtown, and singles elsewhere in the system).

    The primary drawback to doubles remains that they have poor passenger circulation, and longer dwell times. I’ve ridden extensively on Hong Kong’s doubles, and dwell times there are frequently ridiculous. Of course, competition for curb space is also ridiculous–many busses spend a considerable time waiting for other busses to clear a stop; and articulated busses simply wouldn’t function well on many of HK’s narrow streets.

    As TriMet has no desire to look British, doesn’t run many traditional express routes, and doesn’t operate in a city with streets not navigable by articulated busses, doubles may have limited application here. (That said, using articulated busses on the transit mall as presently configured might be a challenge; doubles might “fit better”, as they can fit into a standard 40′ bus stall).

  17. @Ron,

    You are the hand-waiver in my reference, not CT. The buses perform very well in the limited application for which they were purchased: ten-mile freeway commutes in HOV lanes. But CT does not try to run them in the Swift service.

    Scotty nailed the reason why tall buses are completely useless for BRT: poor passenger circulation. And the Southwest Corridor decision is about BRT versus LRT, not express buses.

    The corridor already has several express bus routes, which I expect will stay if BRT is the selected technology. If you think that it should not have even modestly rapid transit (e.g. what BRT in mixed traffic would be) added to it, talk about that and defend it. But you don’t; instead you just fan-boy on and on about some very nice buses.

    The majority of the professionals at Tri-Met and Metro believe that the corridor needs at least that. Expanding the express bus system was studied and has been eliminated as an option I believe.

  18. You can add Berlin, Dublin, Ottawa, Edmonton, (for new projects) and Chinese manufactured models now plus lots of European and South American touring buses to the list.
    http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Double+decker+bus&FORM=HDRSC2
    London is solving the boarding issues with three open platforms. Now to “passenger circulation.” How big of a deal is this? Unless you have people standing in the aisles it should not be a problem. With fewer stops, there is less need for the “circulation.”

    I think it is time to rein in Tri Met. My “allies in Vancouver” as Anadakos likes to put it, who I wish would identify his actual personality) are opposed to BRT there, because it is not needed. It’s just another high falutin’ concept that doubles or triples the costs, but doesn’t provide that much extra benefit. So I think BRT is an extra cost that needs to be examined, and ITS proponents should defend IT! As far as “getting stuck in traffic” this can probably be solved either by choosing a different path through sections where this could happen (such as the Terwiliger curves area, or inner Banfield).

    I particularly think the Sherwood-Tualatin-Portland express bus would be good, because you could ADD Wilsonville in there, somehow, when needed. And this doesn’t take some elaborate time consuming Kum Ba Ya process. Consult an aerial photo instead.

  19. “South American touring buses” are hardly public transit. They’re really nice; I agree. But they’re not transit buses.

    The point of double deck buses — and articulateds for that matter — in express service is to give as many people a seat throughout the ride as financially possible by lowering driver costs. That’s what commuters demand, and in some places (Clark County for instance) they pay premium fares for the comfort and convenience.

    In inner cities double deckers have the advantage of taking less road space for a given capacity, as Scotty pointed out in reference to Hong Kong.

    But they’re used in inner cities only because of that greater capacity for a given road space and the loads demand it. Their dwell times are horrible because of the circulation issues and they have to go around corners more slowly because they’re top-heavy. The circulation issue can be alleviated by not requiring queuing past the driver, but then you’re into off-board payment and the “extra costs” of BRT at which you sneer.

    Anyway, it’s a red herring, because nowhere in the Portland metro area is there a route that has demand that would require a bus every three or four minutes and would overfill a 40 foot standard transit coach. There are plenty of those routes in Hong Kong and London. You can look down the most bus streets in those cities and see four or five buses in either direction from your stop, if the street is straight.

    Finally, why do you want to know my “actual personality”? So you can come and beat me up? That sounds about right. The “conservative” commitment to public participation at work.

  20. Civility, please. Posters here are welcome to remain anonymous or pseudonymous if they choose.

    The reason that double dwell times are so bad is that the staircase frequently becomes a bottleneck, not the doors. On HK doubles, there’s limited seating in the bottom floor of the coach (only the rear half), most seats are on the top level. And only one narrow staircase to get up and down. I don’t know about the seating configuration of the CT double-talls.

  21. Scotty,

    Yes, you’re right. Using multiple doors and not queuing by the driver can alleviate, but not eliminate circulation problems on tall buses, because of the stairway.

    Interestingly, a couple of the Bing photos to which Ron linked show a new TFL red bus with a stairwell at the back of the bus as well as a non-spiral one just behind the driver, with an artful window swirling up the rear of the coach. Presumably it uses a Hong Kong-like layout on the lower level with few or no seats. It has so much space devoted to circulation (three doors and two staircases) it can’t have many lower level seats.

    That coach must still use a conductor for boarding through the wide rear door. That would never fly in North America where we’re already on jihad against those overpaid chauffeurs at the front of our buses. No money for rear-door guards, eh?

  22. The London buses seat 62. People like them, why don’t you get your facts straight?

    “The “hop-on, hop-off” function that made the Routemaster fly through London’s stop-and-go traffic will once again be in operation, thanks to the rear platform and staircase. Passengers can get on and off the bus whenever the bus is stopped at a red light, effectively decreasing stopping time. There is a hitch, though: the rear door requires a conductor to operate it, so it will only be functional during daytime hours.

    Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/03/02/londons-iconic-routemaster-bus-rolls-again-with-a-modern-design/#ixzz2XMDcmIBK

    Why do you think I would beat you up? What an outrageous comment. Further, I don’t consider myself a conservative; I consider myself an independent.

    I’ll bet there is a solution to the boarding. Besides, I’m only suggesting them for “limited stop” operations, which is what Community Transit is doing, and apparently successfully, since they have the greenlight to expand their fleet.

    And this is all being done for about three percent of what a light rail line would be.

  23. Ron, relax… nobody said that people “don’t like” doubles. I didn’t say that, certainly. That said, I doubt a conductor-assisted-boarding-at-red-lights policy would fly here, for many reasons (including the cost of a conductor, the potential safety issues, and ADA issues–what if a wheelchair or a stroller wants to board in this fashion?)

    And this is all being done for about three percent of what a light rail line would be.

    WSDOT has kindly provided CT, and other agencies (and Washington motorists), with segregated express lanes on I-5, and dedicated freeway bus platforms and such. No similar infrastructure exists in Portland. I could see it happening in some places (I-205 has a wide median in many places, after all), but building this would cost well more than 3% of a LRT line. Without it, you would get service that is only marginally better than current freeway express routes like the 96.

    Express bus and LRT/BRT are two different transit products, for two different functions; they are not equivalent. Suggesting they are is like saying “Filet mignon is too expensive, why don’t you eat an ice cream cone instead”? While both are food, ice cream has a different culinary and dietary purpose than beef, and does not function as a low-cost substitute for the more expensive item.

Leave a Reply to Erik H. Cancel reply

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