This showed up in my e-mail today:
> ---------------------------
> The Portland Mall Revitalization Project is planning for renovations
> that will enliven 5th and 6th Avenues and bring MAX service through the
> heart of downtown. Hear what's planned and comment on the draft
> Conceptual Design Report at an open house.
>
> Tuesday, July 8
> 12:00pm - 1:30pm & 4pm - 6pm
> Portland Building, Room C
> 1120 SW 5th Ave.
>
> Wednesday, July 9
> 5pm - 6:30pm
> Port of Portland Building, Commission Room
> 121 NW Everett
>
> Thursday, July 10
> 5pm - 7pm
> PSU Urban Center - 2nd floor, Gallery Room
> 506 SW Mill
>
> For more information on the proposal, visit trimet.org or call
> 503-962-2150.
--
Aaron `Katt` O'Donnell
http://www.aaroncity.com
Jason McHuff wrote:
> Thanks for getting that posted. :-) I would like to go to one of them
> but I live in Salem and don't know if I can get up there on a weekday.
>
> BUT...The Conceptual Design Report is now online! It's 11 PDF files,
> 9.7M total. http://www.trimet.org/promotions/mall_cdr&openhouse.htm
>
> Note that the intro sounds like light rail is the focus. Also, all
> three station platform locations (left side, island and right side)
> have light rail using the left bus lane. IMO, this means that busses
> would possibly be blocked in until the train goes by (or the bus in
> front also gets going).
>
> Another problem would be forcing the busses into 1 lane while a train
> is stopped at a station. The good news is that the busses will all be
> moving, since there will be no stops in station blocks.
>
> --Jason McHuff, Salem, OR; Happy 4th!
This proposal is a bunch of crap IMHO... eliminating bus stops in station
blocks means less bus service and no connectivity to the stations they're
creating. They're basically trying to get rid of an award-winning
bus system that costs them money to maintain. I guess they figure the
clientele isn't as rich as the would-be rail ridership. Hopefully lots
of bus riders will attend the design sessions and tell them where they
can stick this proposal.
Either that or they deliberately skewed the options toward the
unacceptable in an effort to put the kibosh on the entire bus mall
alignment (a real possibility in the world of modern transportation
planning politics.)
To essentially scrap an award-winning bus system in order to introduce
a pure commuter-only freeway light rail line is the most regressive thing
they could possibly think to do with whatever is left in state coffers.
I guess it's in keeping with government policy these days.
Eliminating half the stops on the bus mall will not allow buses
to pass each other in the queue, but what it will do is require
half of the systems buses to be turned short of downtown or
cancelled outright, whereas the I-205 MAX line would duplicate
only one or two bus lines in the eastern suburbs. I'd love to
see MAX to Milwaukie but the only way to do it on the Bus Mall
is to sacrifice those turn lanes. How many non-chain businesses
are left on the bus mall, I'd like to know, that might be injured?
-BER
wrob <wrob@no-spam> wrote in message news:<3F091504.43AF42E9@no-spam>...
...
>
> This proposal is a bunch of crap IMHO... eliminating bus stops in station
> blocks means less bus service and no connectivity to the stations they're
> creating. They're basically trying to get rid of an award-winning
> bus system that costs them money to maintain. I guess they figure the
> clientele isn't as rich as the would-be rail ridership. Hopefully lots
> of bus riders will attend the design sessions and tell them where they
> can stick this proposal.
>
Acording the the design, they don't want to disrupt the bus flow.
However, I do wonder if a stopped bus will have to either wait for a
MAX train to pass or the bus in front of it to get going. Overall,
they do note that there really isn't enough room for everything.
> Either that or they deliberately skewed the options toward the
> unacceptable in an effort to put the kibosh on the entire bus mall
> alignment (a real possibility in the world of modern transportation
> planning politics.)
>
> To essentially scrap an award-winning bus system in order to introduce
> a pure commuter-only freeway light rail line is the most regressive thing
> they could possibly think to do with whatever is left in state coffers.
> I guess it's in keeping with government policy these days.
>
> Eliminating half the stops on the bus mall will not allow buses
> to pass each other in the queue, but what it will do is require
> half of the systems buses to be turned short of downtown or
> cancelled outright, whereas the I-205 MAX line would duplicate
> only one or two bus lines in the eastern suburbs. I'd love to
> see MAX to Milwaukie but the only way to do it on the Bus Mall
> is to sacrifice those turn lanes. How many non-chain businesses
> are left on the bus mall, I'd like to know, that might be injured?
>
I don't think that they want to "scrap" the bus system. Also,
remember that MAX won the awards, too. They are NOT planning to get
rid of half of the bus stops. Unlike on Morrison and Yamhill, MAX
will not stop every other block.
Overall, I think N-S MAX thru the middle of downtown to PSU and Union
Station is a great idea. However, I do share the concerns with it
interacting with the busses. This is partly why I think it should be
elevated.
Jason McHuff, Salem, OR
jmchuff@no-spam (Jason McHuff) wrote in message news:<21f959d.0307071859.642276fb@no-spam>...
> wrob <wrob@no-spam> wrote in message news:<3F091504.43AF42E9@no-spam>...
> ...
> >
> > This proposal is a bunch of crap IMHO... eliminating bus stops in station
> > blocks means less bus service and no connectivity to the stations they're
> > creating. They're basically trying to get rid of an award-winning
> > bus system that costs them money to maintain. I guess they figure the
> > clientele isn't as rich as the would-be rail ridership. Hopefully lots
> > of bus riders will attend the design sessions and tell them where they
> > can stick this proposal.
> >
> Acording the the design, they don't want to disrupt the bus flow.
> However, I do wonder if a stopped bus will have to either wait for a
> MAX train to pass or the bus in front of it to get going. Overall,
> they do note that there really isn't enough room for everything.
>
They now have video simulations of MAX, busses, autos and people on
the mall. They show that, yes, MAX will impact busses as described
above.
http://www.trimet.org/promotions/mall_cdr&openhouse.htm
I went to the open house. I was not convinced MAX needs to go on the
bus mall. In fact, that wasn't the purpose of the open house;
apparently the decision was made back in 1998 that "MAX shall go on
the mall, eventually". But one of the engineers admitted to me that
of their three proposed options for adding MAX, a fourth not
explicitly mentioned was "don't do it".
The biggest reason mentioned for putting MAX on the mall was
future capacity of the train system. Eventually, because of the slow
route through downtown on the existing tracks, trains will be
bottlenecked. That much is obvious. But why have no alternate ways
to add capacity to the system been seriously considered?
I'd prefer they turn the existing line from Goose Hollow to Rose
Quarter into another "Portland Street Car" and add a MAX bypass
connection going somewhere parallel to NW Glisan to connect to the
Steel Bridge. Make limited stops in between (existing StreetCar, Bus
Mall/Union Station). Shave a few minutes off the downtown travel
time. Perhaps some trains would be "express only" and a few "local".
The other given reason for adding MAX was "improving the bus mall". I
can't see what the two have to do with each other, honestly. What's
so wrong with busses??? I'm tired of TriMet acting like busses are
the ugly step-children to be hidden away. Trains do make sense in
some areas (West-side MAX) but certainly not everywhere.
Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
*******************************************************************
----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
*******************************************************************
Andrew wrote:
> I went to the open house. I was not convinced MAX needs to go on the
> bus mall. In fact, that wasn't the purpose of the open house;
> apparently the decision was made back in 1998 that "MAX shall go on
> the mall, eventually". But one of the engineers admitted to me that
> of their three proposed options for adding MAX, a fourth not
> explicitly mentioned was "don't do it".
Any engineer with any degree of professional integrity would recognize
the following Option #5: Eliminate the Auto-only turn lanes and the
extra-wide sidewalks interspersed between them; which serve no other
purpose than to mollify the few remaining (mostly chain) retail
establishments fronting the mall.
After all it IS a feasible option, which is all an engineer with any
professional integrity should be concerned with. AND it is the LEAST
impactful possible option when you look at the number of potentially
impacted individuals in various modes (pedestrian, bus, car, rail)--
across the FIVE possible options. This is something any engineer
worth her salt should care about.
Andrew, since you seem to have access to these open houses (I am not
currently living in Portland, so I can't attend them) I would greatly
appreciate if you or someone else would bring this option up
at the next available opportunity to do so.
> The biggest reason mentioned for putting MAX on the mall was
> future capacity of the train system. Eventually, because of the slow
> route through downtown on the existing tracks, trains will be
> bottlenecked. That much is obvious. But why have no alternate ways
> to add capacity to the system been seriously considered?
Eliminate the auto-only turn lanes and the extra-wide sidewalks
that are interspersed with them. Nobody goes onto the turn lanes
looking to do some shopping, and they are very low capacity. It's
the only real option. How stupid can people be? THOUSANDS more
people use the bus system than either shop on 5th/6th, drive on
5th/6th, OR would take the train on 5th/6th.
> I'd prefer they turn the existing line from Goose Hollow to Rose
> Quarter into another "Portland Street Car" and add a MAX bypass
> connection going somewhere parallel to NW Glisan to connect to the
> Steel Bridge. Make limited stops in between (existing StreetCar, Bus
> Mall/Union Station). Shave a few minutes off the downtown travel
> time. Perhaps some trains would be "express only" and a few "local".
This wouldn't solve the problem of overall throughput, unless
you closed off the street and made it a 4-track express-local
or split the trains, kept some of them running on the existing
MAX tracks, and made it a de facto express local.
Regardless of station spacing, you can't decrease minimum headways
any further on a single route thru downtown without blocking cross
traffic, with or without signal preemption.
Of course you could run half the trains on the existing tracks
and the other half on a different cross-street as an "express".
But then the people on the "express" may not be able to access
office/retail areas towards Burnside at all, which would cause
the "locals" to be overloaded by those people.
When you split a line thru a CBD, both sides need to serve the
same overall number of destinations or you get uneven boarding,
which is a major problem.
Since the current MAX tracks run right down the middle of the
geographical distribution of destination points, the engineers
probably concluded that the only way for a second circulator to
serve more than half of the same area was to run it perpendicular
north to south. AIUI there are only two usable one-way N/S pairs,
the streetcar and the bus mall, take your pick. Once you get on
either of those pairs, you're faced with the same design issues
because the buses and streetcars all have to travel through the
shared segment, so so it makes no sense to split the difference.
> The other given reason for adding MAX was "improving the bus mall". I
> can't see what the two have to do with each other, honestly. What's
> so wrong with busses??? I'm tired of TriMet acting like busses are
> the ugly step-children to be hidden away. Trains do make sense in
> some areas (West-side MAX) but certainly not everywhere.
They're sick people who don't understand where their bread is buttered.
Much like the WMATA chairmen from DC and Arlington who are pushing
trolleys instead of more Metrorail. Metrorail carries more people
than all new LRT systems combined, but they assert that it is an
inefficient, "expensive", white elephant.
I am continually amazed by how many people in power refuse to ride
buses and subways. I believe it is an issue of class preconceptions.
People who have never ridden a bus/subway on a regular basis assume
that it's just not a socially acceptable means of moving affluent
professionals like politicians and senior engineers.
It's fine for students and secretaries, IOW, but as you get older,
you're supposed to restrict your use of such things for practical
and social reasons. LRT is perfect for excursion traffic, and that's
the only transit use people of a certain age and income level are
expected to care about.
Please forward my comments re: the turn lane option to the engineers
you spoke to, or let me know how I can do so (their real address,
not the address for federally-mandated public comment.)
Thanks,
Brian in DC
wrob <wrob@no-spam> wrote in message news:<3F0DC853.A6E3EE18@no-spam>...
> Andrew wrote:
>
> > I went to the open house. I was not convinced MAX needs to go on the
> > bus mall. In fact, that wasn't the purpose of the open house;
> > apparently the decision was made back in 1998 that "MAX shall go on
> > the mall, eventually". But one of the engineers admitted to me that
> > of their three proposed options for adding MAX, a fourth not
> > explicitly mentioned was "don't do it".
>
> Any engineer with any degree of professional integrity would recognize
> the following Option #5: Eliminate the Auto-only turn lanes and the
> extra-wide sidewalks interspersed between them; which serve no other
> purpose than to mollify the few remaining (mostly chain) retail
> establishments fronting the mall.
>
I will agree about the "usefulness" of the auto lanes. It should be
noted that there are blocks (S of Burnside, Stark, and Yamhill) where
there are no auto lanes and that there are 2-3 blocks between them.
Also, I'm pretty sure that there are turning restrictions at other
intersections. N of Burnside, there are uninterupted auto lanes and
that area IMO is worse. What the businesses really need for auto
users is parking. Space and politics have said no to that.
Overall, as I have said, I think MAX SHOUD go N-S thru downtown from
Union Station to PSU. It is IMO the logical route for it to take to
serve the most places effectively. Most people that take MAX get
on/off downtown, so an express line wouldn't help. I think that using
the auto lanes is going to be my second choice, behind elevating it.
I recieved a reply to my e-mail (to trimetlightrail@no-spam ) about
the fact that it looked like the bus flow would be disrupted and they
said that the details still need to be worked out.
Lastly, "For more than two decades, plans have called for light rail
on the Mall." I've seen an old map on a round pylon on the transit
mall showing a proposed MAX route.
http://www.trimet.org/improving/tmall.htm
--Jason McHuff, Salem, OR
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Andrew" <usenetMYSHOES@no-spam> wrote in message
news:rkrhjfyfy20484644038407@no-spam
> In pdx.general Jason McHuff <jmchuff@no-spam> wrote:
>
> : Most people that take MAX get on/off downtown, so an express line
> : wouldn't help.
>
> Well, one reason most current MAX riders get off downtown is that it's
> too damn *slow* to use it to go across town. Beaverton to the
> airport, for example, would be much more feasible without the extra
> 15 minutes cut off through downtown. Unfortunately, transit time is
> near the bottom of the list of criteria for our transit system design.
>
Actually the reason that most current MAX riders get off downtown is because
downtown is their destination. While changing your destination works with
some venues like the food court at the mall - "the line's too long at the
pizza place, so I'll have chicken instead", people headed for the airport
from Beaverton are simply NOT going to say "this is too slow, I guess I'll
get off downtown instead of going to the airport."
In pdx.general Baxter <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote:
: "Andrew" <usenetMYSHOES@no-spam> wrote in message
: news:rkrhjfyfy20484644038407@no-spam
:> In pdx.general Jason McHuff <jmchuff@no-spam> wrote:
:>
:> : Most people that take MAX get on/off downtown, so an express line
:> : wouldn't help.
:>
:> Well, one reason most current MAX riders get off downtown is that it's
:> too damn *slow* to use it to go across town. Beaverton to the
:> airport, for example, would be much more feasible without the extra
:> 15 minutes cut off through downtown. Unfortunately, transit time is
:> near the bottom of the list of criteria for our transit system design.
:>
: Actually the reason that most current MAX riders get off downtown is because
: downtown is their destination.
I'll try again for you, different phrasing: the reason more people do
not use MAX to go across town is that it is too slow. They make this
determination rom reading the schedule, past experience, whatever,
before getting *on* the train. So obviously, most of the
riders who are *already* on the train will be getting off downtown -
the ones who decided to drive will not be on the train.
15 minutes might not seem like much but could be enough to tip the
scales for some people. Today they might say: "I can take MAX to the
airport, or I can have that extra hour of sleep and drive". Shave
some time off the current ride and it's an easier decision to make.
: While changing your destination works with
: some venues like the food court at the mall - "the line's too long at the
: pizza place, so I'll have chicken instead", people headed for the airport
: from Beaverton are simply NOT going to say "this is too slow, I guess I'll
: get off downtown instead of going to the airport."
Where did you come up with that? People will decide *ahead of time*
MAX is too slow and drive, take a taxi or shuttle, whatever. I can't
think of too many people who were headed to the airport and would
change their minds on the way over there...
Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
*******************************************************************
----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
*******************************************************************
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Andrew" <usenetMYSHOES@no-spam> wrote in message
news:ddlahjaxc26284645638407@no-spam
>
> 15 minutes might not seem like much but could be enough to tip the
> scales for some people. Today they might say: "I can take MAX to the
> airport, or I can have that extra hour of sleep and drive". Shave
> some time off the current ride and it's an easier decision to make.
Interesting. According to you, 15 minutes equals one hour.
Fact is, more and more people are finding MAX to the airport works for
them - particularly when they factor in the time spent finding parking,
walking from the parking lot to the terminal, etc. MAX dumps you practically
at the ticket booths. When you factor in the two hours going through
security, that 15 minutes (if that) isn't nearly the factor you make it out
to be.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Andrew" <usenetMYSHOES@no-spam> wrote in message
news:rkrucac20724645838407@no-spam
> In pdx.general Baxter <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote:
>
> : "Andrew" <usenetMYSHOES@no-spam> wrote in message
> : news:ddlahjaxc26284645638407@no-spam
> :>
> :> 15 minutes might not seem like much but could be enough to tip the
> :> scales for some people. Today they might say: "I can take MAX to the
> :> airport, or I can have that extra hour of sleep and drive". Shave
> :> some time off the current ride and it's an easier decision to make.
>
> : Interesting. According to you, 15 minutes equals one hour.
>
> You're an idiot.
And you're so charming ....
In article <vgugtm45jujc2a@no-spam>, "Baxter"
<lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote:
> > A downtown bypass, as a general rule, is not put in to
> > benefit the people who wish to go downtown; Andrew is talking about
> > people who wish to use the interurban to commute from the east side
> > to the west side and who don't wish to spend 20+ minutes crawling
> > through the city center.
>
> And how many people is that. I hear a lot of noise on amUsenet, but I
> wonder if they could fill even one train of actual people. And unlike some
> amUsenet inhabitants, I would think that TriMet has done some work to
> identify such markets.
You must be joking, right? There is a huge number of people who clog the
freeways every day doing just that - both I-84 -> 26 and I-205 -> I-5 ->
Hwy 217. Many others on such local routes as Taylors Ferry Road, the
Sellwood Bridge, Burnside, Cornell Road, Germantown Road, Newberry Road,
and the St. Johns Bridge. Even at the tiny company I work for, there are
probably 3 or 4 people out of the 15 who have said thay would consider
taking MAX from the west side, but doing so would turn a 45 minute trip
into a 2 hour ordeal because of having to get through downtown, and so
they drive.
--
-Glenn Laubaugh
Personal Web Site: http://users.easystreet.com/glennl
In article <3F0E478C.C8D5E735@no-spam>, wrob <wrob@no-spam> wrote:
>
> What the businesses need to realize is this will be far more "cachet"
> than having a few turn lanes come past their dinky franchise with
> little traffic and no parking. And the extra-wide sidewalks are,
> if anything, creepy in that "city of tomorrow" fashion, given how
> few people walk on that side of the street!
You need to spend some time actually watching the streets in the transit
mall to see how some of the problems are going to develop.
The "auto traffic" lane is frequently occupied by armoured cars and
various other vehicles making deliveries. They aren't there long, but the
traffic congestion that they can cause when they stop in the street and
then everything has to go around them can get quite horrid, depending on
the situation.
There are also many times that there are police vehicles and various other
obstructions on the transit mall. The worst case I ever saw was when they
had some 50 foot semi-truck back (very slowly) into the loading dock at
the KOIN center, blocking bus routes and varous streets in the process,
and causing a really awful chain reaction tangle all over SW Portland. I
think I wound up being an hour and a half late for work that day.
The ideal case assumes that traffic is always flowing at best on the
transit mall, but frequently that is simply not the case. These are not
some sort of one-of-a-kind accident either. This is just normal traffic
generated by businesses there that includes loading and unloading of
merchandise, money, materials, and who knows what all else.
While it is true that the businesses over on SW 1st Ave don't have
problems with the MAX dedicated street there, I would point out that they
have a different mix of businesses over there than what is on the transit
mall, plus 2nd and Front are both wide enough that if they have to, a
truck can simply park in the middle of the street and unload there if they
have to. The roads around the transit mall are a little more difficult to
manage due to traffic density and road width.
--
-Glenn Laubaugh
Personal Web Site: http://users.easystreet.com/glennl
In article <vgtisqrn91pkc9@no-spam>,
Baxter <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote:
>--
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>"Andrew" <usenetMYSHOES@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:rkrhjfyfy20484644038407@no-spam
>> In pdx.general Jason McHuff <jmchuff@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>> : Most people that take MAX get on/off downtown, so an express line
>> : wouldn't help.
>>
>> Well, one reason most current MAX riders get off downtown is that it's
>> too damn *slow* to use it to go across town. Beaverton to the
>> airport, for example, would be much more feasible without the extra
>> 15 minutes cut off through downtown. Unfortunately, transit time is
>> near the bottom of the list of criteria for our transit system design.
>>
>Actually the reason that most current MAX riders get off downtown is because
>downtown is their destination.
No shit. A downtown bypass, as a general rule, is not put in to
benefit the people who wish to go downtown; Andrew is talking about
people who wish to use the interurban to commute from the east side
to the west side and who don't wish to spend 20+ minutes crawling
through the city center. These people, as a general rule, don't
just put up with the 20 minute crawl -- they pull their automobile
out of the garage and put up with the traffic on the highways.
The argument could be made that the interurban is currently at
capacity (certainly an argument that Tri-Met is making with their
proposal to drop one E/W train a hour to make room for a
Beaverton/Airport train in the West Hills tunnel) and there's no
point in putting in a bypass that the line is too congested to use.
But don't insult everyone's intelligence by popping up to mention
that yes, the sky is still blue and isn't it pretty today?
____
david parsons \bi/ Sheeesh.
\/
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"david parsons" <orc@no-spam> wrote in message
news:benbio$ffm@no-spam
> In article <vgtisqrn91pkc9@no-spam>,
> Baxter <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote:
> >>
> >Actually the reason that most current MAX riders get off downtown is
because
> >downtown is their destination.
>
> No shit. A downtown bypass, as a general rule, is not put in to
> benefit the people who wish to go downtown; Andrew is talking about
> people who wish to use the interurban to commute from the east side
> to the west side and who don't wish to spend 20+ minutes crawling
> through the city center.
And how many people is that. I hear a lot of noise on amUsenet, but I
wonder if they could fill even one train of actual people. And unlike some
amUsenet inhabitants, I would think that TriMet has done some work to
identify such markets.
usenetMYSHOES@no-spam (Andrew) writes:
> all the way to PSU. Can't they change like the other MAX lines do?
Well, part of the idea, I imagine, is to reduce transfers. It's
pretty well established that if people have to transfer ridership
drops off considerably. One of the big criticisms of Westside
MAX, I might add.
Darrell
orc@no-spam (david parsons) wrote in message news:<benbio$ffm@no-spam>...
...
> The argument could be made that the interurban is currently at
> capacity (certainly an argument that Tri-Met is making with their
> proposal to drop one E/W train a hour to make room for a
> Beaverton/Airport train in the West Hills tunnel) and there's no
> point in putting in a bypass that the line is too congested to use.
> But don't insult everyone's intelligence by popping up to mention
> that yes, the sky is still blue and isn't it pretty today?
>
I am pretty sure that the 1 E/W train a hour is to make TRAINS
available for Airport-to-Beaverton. Capacity is fine (for now) since
it's just extending a route that already goes thru downtown. West
side is not congested.
Also, I agree w/what Baxter posted about the # of thru travellers.
Just remember that elevated MAX would mean a faster trip for them.
--Jason McHuff, Salem, OR
P.S. El MAX should be a lot narrower than the Lovejoy Ramp.
Andrew wrote:
> Don't forget: getting a ride to the MAX station (or bus stop),
> waiting for the train, making a connection all takes time. You can
> blow 15 minutes just waiting for the train if you time it wrong.
> Saving 15 minutes could be important.
FIFTEEN MINUTE headways??? And this is an award winning system?
Please. Without the bus mall, Portland would be nothing. MAX
lovers need to get over their obsession and realise that while
light rail may further increase transit ridership, it cannot
do so by cannibalizing the existing bus system. Here in DC,
it took WMATA 15 years to get beyond stealing riders from the
(admittedly huge) bus system. Unlike DC's system, Portlands
is well-designed and comfortable rather than simply huge. In
fact, it's not huge. Take it away and you're left with MAX
ridership, 40% of which is excursion traffic.
> I usually do take bus/MAX from SE Portland - takes 60-80 minutes.
> There have been a few times recently when I got rides to the airport
> even though I could have taken MAX, because 15 minutes really would
> have made a difference.
If the bus no longer goes directly to the airport, it's easy to
understand why a forced transfer to Airport MAX to SE Portland --
a vast area which MAX will never fully serve directly (I know,
I lived there and got around by bus and bike) -- would seem more
appealing than having to drive to the airport -- but not more
appealing than a one-seat ride.
-BER
In pdx.general wrob <wrob@no-spam> wrote:
: Andrew wrote:
:> Don't forget: getting a ride to the MAX station (or bus stop),
:> waiting for the train, making a connection all takes time. You can
:> blow 15 minutes just waiting for the train if you time it wrong.
:> Saving 15 minutes could be important.
: FIFTEEN MINUTE headways??? And this is an award winning system?
For Airport MAX (red line) only! 4X an hour to serve the airport is
plenty. There are many more trains on the blue line from Gresham to
Hillsboro through downtown.
:> I usually do take bus/MAX from SE Portland - takes 60-80 minutes.
:> There have been a few times recently when I got rides to the airport
:> even though I could have taken MAX, because 15 minutes really would
:> have made a difference.
: If the bus no longer goes directly to the airport, it's easy to
: understand why a forced transfer to Airport MAX to SE Portland --
: a vast area which MAX will never fully serve directly (I know,
: I lived there and got around by bus and bike) -- would seem more
: appealing than having to drive to the airport -- but not more
: appealing than a one-seat ride.
Actually, an express route through downtown wouldn't have any effect
on my particular routing to the airport. I was just pointing out that
an extra 15 minutes of travel time can mean a lot.
Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
*******************************************************************
----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
*******************************************************************
In pdx.general Darrell Fuhriman <darrell@no-spam> wrote:
: usenetMYSHOES@no-spam (Andrew) writes:
:> all the way to PSU. Can't they change like the other MAX lines do?
: Well, part of the idea, I imagine, is to reduce transfers. It's
: pretty well established that if people have to transfer ridership
: drops off considerably. One of the big criticisms of Westside
: MAX, I might add.
But taking MAX up the bus mall will only reduce transfers for people
riding from Interstate MAX going all the way to PSU. How many people,
really, riding that line will not take it because they have to
transfer to a bus? With fareless square buses running up the mall all
the time to PSU, there wouldn't be much of a delay in transferring.
Most of the riders will probably be students. Different case than,
say, riders to the Airport who are carrying luggage and such.
Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
*******************************************************************
----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
*******************************************************************
Andrew wrote:
> In pdx.general wrob <wrob@no-spam> wrote:
> : Andrew wrote:
>
> :> Don't forget: getting a ride to the MAX station (or bus stop),
> :> waiting for the train, making a connection all takes time. You can
> :> blow 15 minutes just waiting for the train if you time it wrong.
> :> Saving 15 minutes could be important.
>
> : FIFTEEN MINUTE headways??? And this is an award winning system?
>
> For Airport MAX (red line) only! 4X an hour to serve the airport is
> plenty. There are many more trains on the blue line from Gresham to
> Hillsboro through downtown.
Where I live the trains serving the airport don't stop there, because
airports carry a tiny fraction of transit demand. It's like terminating
a train at the zoo. There just aren't that many people going there by
any mode compared to the number of people trying to get to work etc..
15 mins coupled with the fact that an express bus would be faster
and more frequent in most cities, and extend into many more transit
hubs than does MAX, would be enough to turn me off using it to catch
a plane. If MAX had a large rail network it'd be another story but
even if it did have a large rail network the hub system of bus lines
would HAVE to be preserved or MAX would be untenable. Without the
award-winning bus system MAX is just another "failed yet popular"
starter system that took 20 years to get expanded to a usable size.
Like Baltimore. Nobody thinks Baltimore's LRT is any great shakes,
they might think it cool if they could absolutely rely on a bus to
get to their final destination. The bus system creates the demand,
even in cities with sucky bus systems.
> :> I usually do take bus/MAX from SE Portland - takes 60-80 minutes.
> :> There have been a few times recently when I got rides to the airport
> :> even though I could have taken MAX, because 15 minutes really would
> :> have made a difference.
>
> : If the bus no longer goes directly to the airport, it's easy to
> : understand why a forced transfer to Airport MAX to SE Portland --
> : a vast area which MAX will never fully serve directly (I know,
> : I lived there and got around by bus and bike) -- would seem more
> : appealing than having to drive to the airport -- but not more
> : appealing than a one-seat ride.
>
> Actually, an express route through downtown wouldn't have any effect
> on my particular routing to the airport. I was just pointing out that
> an extra 15 minutes of travel time can mean a lot.
Express to the airport is fine. I agree that 15 mins can mean alot,
especially when that's the interval between trains! 10 mins is the
maximum I'm comfortable waiting on an outside platform for a transit
of any kind. Longer than that and it might as well be an hour, give
me the opportunity to eat across the street until the bus pulls up.
Express through Portland would certainly add utility to the MAX system.
The troble is it doesn't go anywhere. You can take a bus from the
bus mall to any of what, 12 different transit centers? With two or
three sub-systems short-turning from there. Until MAX connects
between each and every one of those transit centers -- including
crosstown connections, not just winding paths converging on downtown
Portland -- it makes no sense to short-turn a single additional bus.
-BER
Andrew wrote:
> In pdx.general Darrell Fuhriman <darrell@no-spam> wrote:
> : usenetMYSHOES@no-spam (Andrew) writes:
>
> :> all the way to PSU. Can't they change like the other MAX lines do?
>
> : Well, part of the idea, I imagine, is to reduce transfers. It's
> : pretty well established that if people have to transfer ridership
> : drops off considerably. One of the big criticisms of Westside
> : MAX, I might add.
>
> But taking MAX up the bus mall will only reduce transfers for people
> riding from Interstate MAX going all the way to PSU. How many people,
> really, riding that line will not take it because they have to
> transfer to a bus? With fareless square buses running up the mall all
> the time to PSU, there wouldn't be much of a delay in transferring.
> Most of the riders will probably be students. Different case than,
> say, riders to the Airport who are carrying luggage and such.
Like I say, if you take the auto lane, there is no conflict with
existing buses whatsoever, and not a single one of them has to
be cancelled or short-turned at the Gateway or Sunset transit
centers, nor share space with trains.
-BER
Dateline: pdx.general, 11 Jul 2003 07:10:19 GMT.
usenetMYSHOES@no-spam (Andrew) wrote:
>Well, one reason most current MAX riders get off downtown is that it's
>too damn *slow* to use it to go across town. Beaverton to the
>airport, for example, would be much more feasible without the extra
>15 minutes cut off through downtown. Unfortunately, transit time is
>near the bottom of the list of criteria for our transit system design.
I asked about this when Tri-Met came to speak at the PDX Traffic &
Transportation class I took. The Tri-Met answer I got was basically,
"no, we'll never triple-track MAX for an express-only line, or make an
express train on the current tracks."
Tri-Met likes to think of MAX as really big and shiny bus on expensive
trackway. Which has always seemed odd to me, I would have thought a
lightrail system would be like an above-ground subway. Now I've never
been on a "big city" subway so I could be wrong, but I don't think a
subway in someplace like New York City would be terribly effective if
it stopped every 2 blocks and held up all the subway cars behind it
because there's only 2 tracks...
But hey, people seem to like big silent MAX trains better then stinky
noisy buses no matter what the cost...
--
Aaron `Katt` O'Donnell
http://www.aaroncity.com
Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell wrote:
> Dateline: pdx.general, 11 Jul 2003 07:10:19 GMT.
> usenetMYSHOES@no-spam (Andrew) wrote:
>
> >Well, one reason most current MAX riders get off downtown is that it's
> >too damn *slow* to use it to go across town. Beaverton to the
> >airport, for example, would be much more feasible without the extra
> >15 minutes cut off through downtown. Unfortunately, transit time is
> >near the bottom of the list of criteria for our transit system design.
>
> I asked about this when Tri-Met came to speak at the PDX Traffic &
> Transportation class I took. The Tri-Met answer I got was basically,
> "no, we'll never triple-track MAX for an express-only line, or make an
> express train on the current tracks."
>
> Tri-Met likes to think of MAX as really big and shiny bus on expensive
> trackway. Which has always seemed odd to me, I would have thought a
> lightrail system would be like an above-ground subway. Now I've never
> been on a "big city" subway so I could be wrong, but I don't think a
> subway in someplace like New York City would be terribly effective if
> it stopped every 2 blocks and held up all the subway cars behind it
> because there's only 2 tracks...
>
> But hey, people seem to like big silent MAX trains better then stinky
> noisy buses no matter what the cost...
I hear wha you're saying man, and you're right. We've got a big city
subway system where I live, and I lived in Portland and loved the bus
system (much better than in DC where it's too damn complex and inefficient).
There's no reason a light rail system can't serve the same purposes as
a subway on a smaller scale. On the other hand, I'm generally opposed
to using light rail as a short-turn feeder to heavy rail, or using
buses as a short turn feeder to rail in general. Each mode ought to
be self-supporting. If a town can support heavy rail, it deserves
heavy rail. Same with light rail. but every town should have a
good bus system, and if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The issue with rail ought to be maximizing ridership, not minimizing
cost or padding out some politician's pet project by cannibalizing
riders from a more extensive bus system. The main advantage LRT has
over heavy rail is that it is capable of being more extensive; however
in most cities it has failed to meet that expectation. This is a
problem since it eliminates that advantage. Without that advantage
it's not superior to the bus, meaning that it's good for point-to-point
trips but not worth transferring to, because odds are your destination
ain't on the MAX line, or else, the bus goes to the exact same
destination at the same speed or faster.
In short, they need to double the size of the PLANNED system
and add a downtown subway -- like most every successful trolley
network has in America -- before they can begin crediting MAX
for a drop-off in bus ridership!! :-)
BTW subways aren't all that expensive and would make an
alternative to elevated. Remember it wouldn't be much
longer than the deep tunnel Washington Park subway.
-BER
Dateline: pdx.general, Sat, 12 Jul 2003 04:45:37 -0400.
wrob <wrob@no-spam> wrote:
>In short, they need to double the size of the PLANNED system
>and add a downtown subway -- like most every successful trolley
>network has in America -- before they can begin crediting MAX
>for a drop-off in bus ridership!! :-)
A subway would be neat.
I think they're worried about the homeless population though. Subways
make great hiding places in the rain and are probably cooler in the
summer. The Portland Business Alliance would go ballistic if visitors
and potential shoppers were greeted with the stench of the homeless
when they venture downstairs into what they think is a friendly MAX
subway station.
Just look at the pedestrian undercrossing on SW Naito Pkwy that
overlooks the ramp to the Ross Island Bridge. It's not very big at
all... and the first time I went down there I discovered it was full
of trash, a sleeping bag, a shopping cart, the smell of urine, and a
homeless guy.
>BTW subways aren't all that expensive and would make an
>alternative to elevated. Remember it wouldn't be much
>longer than the deep tunnel Washington Park subway.
I don't think they had to relocate an entire length of downtown's
worth of utilities, and who knows what that's buried below downtown
when they tunneled under the West Hills. I imagine it would get very
expensive very quickly downtown.
--
Aaron `Katt` O'Donnell
http://www.aaroncity.com
In article <vh0a9eeg02m30@no-spam>, "Baxter"
<lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote:
> Then do your homework and get actual numbers.
Only if you are willing to provide the required funding for surveying the
metro area and determining origin and destination points. Actual numbers
simply don't exist because no one has bothered doing the study. Instead,
transportation planning here is done by adding capacity to crowded routes,
which may or may not be the actual problem. For example, a fair portion
of the people on 99E are probably commuters from the Salem area who don't
want to use I-5 to get into downtown. Expanding capacity of 99E therefore
treats a symptom, not the real cause of the traffic being there in the
first place. Actual numbers? Of course there aren't any, because no one
has bothered doing a traffic study of the area.
--
-Glenn Laubaugh
Personal Web Site: http://users.easystreet.com/glennl
Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell <pdxkatt@no-spam> wrote in message news:<rvlvgv8618vfgsml02k642p1r4cvbk9d5k@no-spam>...
> Dateline: pdx.general, Sat, 12 Jul 2003 04:45:37 -0400.
> wrob <wrob@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >In short, they need to double the size of the PLANNED system
> >and add a downtown subway -- like most every successful trolley
> >network has in America -- before they can begin crediting MAX
> >for a drop-off in bus ridership!! :-)
>
> A subway would be neat.
>
> I think they're worried about the homeless population though. Subways
> make great hiding places in the rain and are probably cooler in the
> summer. The Portland Business Alliance would go ballistic if visitors
> and potential shoppers were greeted with the stench of the homeless
> when they venture downstairs into what they think is a friendly MAX
> subway station.
>
They could patrol the stations just like they do the Wash Pk tunnel.
Homeless would love a lit, dry, 55 deg. crosspassage. I heard that
today from an engineer who is in my stepmom's family. He was w/TriMet
and worked on WestSide MAX beyond the tunnel. Also, they and other
trespassers are why MAX is slowed at the east end of the tunnel.
> Just look at the pedestrian undercrossing on SW Naito Pkwy that
> overlooks the ramp to the Ross Island Bridge. It's not very big at
> all... and the first time I went down there I discovered it was full
> of trash, a sleeping bag, a shopping cart, the smell of urine, and a
> homeless guy.
>
I'm not supurised. Was it shocking to see the GUY? I found a bunch
of broken glass and stuff on the tunnel-like Portland Rd. sidewalks
where it goes under a RR line.
> >BTW subways aren't all that expensive and would make an
> >alternative to elevated. Remember it wouldn't be much
> >longer than the deep tunnel Washington Park subway.
>
> I don't think they had to relocate an entire length of downtown's
> worth of utilities, and who knows what that's buried below downtown
> when they tunneled under the West Hills. I imagine it would get very
> expensive very quickly downtown.
Look at the Big Dig.
Also, the engineer said that he would like a subway when I mentioned
elevating it. AND...He said that they modeled the busses mixing
w/MAX on the mall. He talked about putting lights in the pavement to
warn busses of MAX. (So they know when they have to wait)
--Jason McHuff, Salem, OR
Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell wrote:
> Dateline: pdx.general, Sat, 12 Jul 2003 04:45:37 -0400.
> wrob <wrob@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >In short, they need to double the size of the PLANNED system
> >and add a downtown subway -- like most every successful trolley
> >network has in America -- before they can begin crediting MAX
> >for a drop-off in bus ridership!! :-)
>
> A subway would be neat.
>
> I think they're worried about the homeless population though. Subways
> make great hiding places in the rain and are probably cooler in the
> summer. The Portland Business Alliance would go ballistic if visitors
> and potential shoppers were greeted with the stench of the homeless
> when they venture downstairs into what they think is a friendly MAX
> subway station.
This is exactly what I mean when I mentioned class preconceptions.
Crowded, rapid transit systems, the thinking goes, are the reserve
of the poor.
Thus a slow, pretty, surface line with fewer riders can be just
as crowded but that's OK because their feet don't stink like the
rest of us.
MAX is a tourist system as it is today, and Portlanders are
unaccountably proud of it -- and I suspect in a city where
NE Portland is/was until recently considered a ghetto, businessmen
would like to keep it that way. Never mind the people who don't live
within walking distance of MAX, or have to live across town to get to
their low-paying jobs on time - the important thing is to keep bums
out of the system and keep it on the surface where conventiongoers
can see it.
> Just look at the pedestrian undercrossing on SW Naito Pkwy that
> overlooks the ramp to the Ross Island Bridge. It's not very big at
> all... and the first time I went down there I discovered it was full
> of trash, a sleeping bag, a shopping cart, the smell of urine, and a
> homeless guy.
What do you expect? Pedestrians (on foot) don't generally
want to be separated from street level and will go out of
their way to avoid it if the skyway/subway is tiny and narrow.
I'm sure it'd make a great bomb shelter as well. If, on the other
hand, there was a rapid transit station down there, pedestrians
would be assured that in addition to the homeless guy there'd be
a hundred other law-abiding citizens waiting to catch a train.
> >BTW subways aren't all that expensive and would make an
> >alternative to elevated. Remember it wouldn't be much
> >longer than the deep tunnel Washington Park subway.
>
> I don't think they had to relocate an entire length of downtown's
> worth of utilities, and who knows what that's buried below downtown
> when they tunneled under the West Hills. I imagine it would get very
> expensive very quickly downtown.
They have to relocate most of the utilities for MAX anyway.
This is the main difference from the streetcar where they just
had to resurface the streets.
Jason McHuff wrote:
> > >In short, they need to double the size of the PLANNED system
> > >and add a downtown subway -- like most every successful trolley
> > >network has in America -- before they can begin crediting MAX
> > >for a drop-off in bus ridership!! :-)
> >
> > A subway would be neat.
> >
> > I think they're worried about the homeless population though. Subways
> > make great hiding places in the rain and are probably cooler in the
> > summer. The Portland Business Alliance would go ballistic if visitors
> > and potential shoppers were greeted with the stench of the homeless
> > when they venture downstairs into what they think is a friendly MAX
> > subway station.
> >
> They could patrol the stations just like they do the Wash Pk tunnel.
> Homeless would love a lit, dry, 55 deg. crosspassage. I heard that
> today from an engineer who is in my stepmom's family. He was w/TriMet
> and worked on WestSide MAX beyond the tunnel. Also, they and other
> trespassers are why MAX is slowed at the east end of the tunnel.
Just let'em be, they're not disturbing anyone. Trains there are
packed, with no chance of expanding ridership further, so I wouldn't
worry about who else wants to use the tunnels. :-/
> > I don't think they had to relocate an entire length of downtown's
> > worth of utilities, and who knows what that's buried below downtown
> > when they tunneled under the West Hills. I imagine it would get very
> > expensive very quickly downtown.
>
> Look at the Big Dig.
>
> Also, the engineer said that he would like a subway when I mentioned
> elevating it. AND...He said that they modeled the busses mixing
> w/MAX on the mall. He talked about putting lights in the pavement to
> warn busses of MAX. (So they know when they have to wait)
So nobody is even thinking of asking this guy to consider taking out
the left-hand turn lane instead of screwing up the entire bus system?
I'd at least advise you guys to approach the engineer about it
before spending money on a subway/elevated. To say that a subway
is preferable but the turn lanes are impossible is not something
I'd expect to hear from an engineer. Nor is it an option to be
dismissed lightly!
I am generally in favor of subways/els but there's no chance of
rapid transit in Portland so the best thing we can hope for is
ubiquitous light rail. Until the MAX is ubiquitous, it'd be
unconscionable to further decrease the downtown bus system --
using scarce public funds!!
The left-hand lanes are the only option -- subways and els included --
that would not disrupt operation of the bus system. If we were talking
about disrupting that many light rail riders, there'd be no discussion.
-BER
In article <3F119765.D97CB1E5@no-spam>, wrob <wrob@no-spam> wrote:
> So nobody is even thinking of asking this guy to consider taking out
> the left-hand turn lane instead of screwing up the entire bus system?
I'm not considering it because I first and formost want a different route
through downtown than rebuilding the entire transit mall.
I'm trying to consider the options for that, so I haven't said too much
because I haven't come up with anything really that good.
--
-Glenn Laubaugh
Personal Web Site: http://users.easystreet.com/glennl
wrob <wrob@no-spam> wrote in message news:<3F119765.D97CB1E5@no-spam>...
...
> > Also, the engineer said that he would like a subway when I mentioned
> > elevating it. AND...He said that they modeled the busses mixing
> > w/MAX on the mall. He talked about putting lights in the pavement to
> > warn busses of MAX. (So they know when they have to wait)
>
> So nobody is even thinking of asking this guy to consider taking out
> the left-hand turn lane instead of screwing up the entire bus system?
>
I think I brought something like that up and I know he said that the
businesses really want the auto lanes. I also mentioned that the
businesses really need parking for auto users. The engineer is not
working on this project, but is following is somewhat.
> I'd at least advise you guys to approach the engineer about it
> before spending money on a subway/elevated. To say that a subway
> is preferable but the turn lanes are impossible is not something
> I'd expect to hear from an engineer. Nor is it an option to be
> dismissed lightly!
>
If it has to be on the ground, the auto lanes are porbably best.
However, if they did take it off the street, thru travel would be
encouraged. Also, it seems like TriMet is harsh on having (the few)
autos mix w/MAX.
> I am generally in favor of subways/els but there's no chance of
> rapid transit in Portland so the best thing we can hope for is
> ubiquitous light rail. Until the MAX is ubiquitous, it'd be
> unconscionable to further decrease the downtown bus system --
> using scarce public funds!!
>
Except for downtown, the system is somewhat rapid. I think a lot of
people here agree w/you about the impacts on busses.
> The left-hand lanes are the only option -- subways and els included --
> that would not disrupt operation of the bus system. If we were talking
> about disrupting that many light rail riders, there'd be no discussion.
>
Els would disrupt the bus system? Unlike subways, they would only
really have to close the street to raise the track bed (parts). I
don't think this was much of a problem w/Airport (median-PDX goes over
I-205) or Interstate (N end of Vanport Bridge goes over Denver Ave).
Especially since the bus mall is going to be closed anyway.
--Jason McHuff, Salem, OR
wrob <wrob@no-spam> wrote in message news:<3F1194E3.C49AEA@no-spam>...
...
> > A subway would be neat.
> >
> > I think they're worried about the homeless population though. Subways
> > make great hiding places in the rain and are probably cooler in the
> > summer. The Portland Business Alliance would go ballistic if visitors
> > and potential shoppers were greeted with the stench of the homeless
> > when they venture downstairs into what they think is a friendly MAX
> > subway station.
>
> This is exactly what I mean when I mentioned class preconceptions.
> Crowded, rapid transit systems, the thinking goes, are the reserve
> of the poor.
>
Actually, I read a list today of 10 reasons why newspaper designers
should go to DC for this event and Metro was #2. This was the rail
system and not necessarly the bus system.
...
> > >BTW subways aren't all that expensive and would make an
> > >alternative to elevated. Remember it wouldn't be much
> > >longer than the deep tunnel Washington Park subway.
> >
> > I don't think they had to relocate an entire length of downtown's
> > worth of utilities, and who knows what that's buried below downtown
> > when they tunneled under the West Hills. I imagine it would get very
> > expensive very quickly downtown.
>
> They have to relocate most of the utilities for MAX anyway.
> This is the main difference from the streetcar where they just
> had to resurface the streets.
Not necessarily. They are talking about using some of the Streetcar
construction procedures w/MAX and there are probably more utilities
next to or further down from street tracks that would have to be delt
with. A tunnel dig would probably be a lot wider then 1 track bed.
--Jason McHuff, Salem, OR
In article <vh5tt9isfd2r0b@no-spam>, "Baxter"
<lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote:
> As I suspected - you have no numbers to support your wish-list.
As I have told you before, you need to get out from in front of your
computer, and count the number of cars that come down the hill on Taylor's
Ferry Road to Macadam, and then cross the Sellwood bridge, between 4:30
and 5:30 pm. If these people are working downtown, then where are they
coming from? Taylor's Ferry Road doesn't go there, and neither does the
Sellwood Bridge. For that matter, that particular route is a slow, round
about way, driving wise, to get anywhere, so most of the drivers are
either attempting to get around congested throughfares, or are coming from
the area around Burlingame. While there are a few businesses around
Burlingame, it is not enough to produce that type of traffic level.
Also, you need to check some of the employment figures of the metro area.
For example, Intel is the largest private employer in the state. How many
employees do they have in downtown Portland? Maybe twelve, at most? All
of the rest are in Hillsboro, Beaverton, and nearby locations. Some
people live in the communities where those plants are located, but guess
what? The same thing happens with Intel as happens to employers in
downtown Portland: people can't always live right next to where they work,
and therefore Intel draws employees from quite far away, as do many of the
other industries in Washington County.
When SMART took over the Wilsonville transit service from TriMet, one of
the first things they did was to add an Oregon City to Wilsonville bus
along I-205. Guess why? Because Wilsonville happens to be a place of
employment, and there are a lot of people who drive on I-205 to get
there. TriMet's service only went to downtown Portland. It still only
goes to downtown Portland.
The I-205 south to I-5 north interchange is two lanes wide, due to the
amount of traffic. Are all those cars headed from Wanker's Corner to
downtown Portland? Of course not. They are headed from eastside
locations, such as Oregon City, West Linn, Clackamas, etc. to west side
locations, such as Beaverton, Hillsboro, Tigard, and Tualatin. Service
along this corridor, aside from Wilsonville's bus, is still lacking
because TriMet thinks everyone has to go downtown first. Even
transferring in Lake Oswego to get to Tualatin can be an hour more ordeal,
so is it surprising that I-205 is so crowded with people coming from the
east side?
According to the state DOT, the interchange at I-5 and 217 is the busiest
in the state. Hmm. That's odd, isn't it? 217 doesn't go to downtown,
yet is a major source of traffic congestion on the west side. Maybe it's
because that road goes to Beaverton and Hillsboro?
Believe it or not, there are places of employment outside downtowm
Portland, and that people need to get to work there. I don't need
specific numbers to know that this is the case. All I have to do is open
my eyes. Why you dont' see these things, which to me seem quite obvious,
I can't possibly say.
--
-Glenn Laubaugh
Personal Web Site: http://users.easystreet.com/glennl
Jason McHuff wrote:
> wrob <wrob@no-spam> wrote in message news:<3F1194E3.C49AEA@no-spam>...
> ...
> > > A subway would be neat.
> > >
> > > I think they're worried about the homeless population though. Subways
> > > make great hiding places in the rain and are probably cooler in the
> > > summer. The Portland Business Alliance would go ballistic if visitors
> > > and potential shoppers were greeted with the stench of the homeless
> > > when they venture downstairs into what they think is a friendly MAX
> > > subway station.
> >
> > This is exactly what I mean when I mentioned class preconceptions.
> > Crowded, rapid transit systems, the thinking goes, are the reserve
> > of the poor.
> >
> Actually, I read a list today of 10 reasons why newspaper designers
> should go to DC for this event and Metro was #2. This was the rail
> system and not necessarly the bus system.
I didn't say it was an accurate preconception. People don't seem to
have any preconceptions about monorail technology, forinstance. You can
see the difference in attitudes between Seattle monorail-imagine if they'd
proposed an elevated Chicago-style system with straddle-beams that wouldn't
have caused any more actual disruption or shadows. People would've rioted
nonetheless.
(The reason old-fashioned els are so dark is because they used up the
entire right of way, i.e. they either put two tracks over an alley,
as in Chicago, or an entire 4-track express system over a boulevard,
as in New York. A two-lane el would not cast its street in shadows,
especially if straddle-beams were used (the kind with steel piers sunk
into the edge of the sidewalk) or if a median was available for modern
concrete post-tension beams. The only el I'm familiar with here in DC
is the historic Whitehurst Freeway (the first public works project built
by a black-and-white team of ex-football players in the 40's). It blocks
off Georgetown's waterfront but nobody wants it torn down cause it looks
cool. :-) And it's 4-5 lanes wide...
Oh yeah and Georgetown STILL doesn't have Metro because WMATA's political
appointed chairman is from Arlington and believes light rail is superior
to Metro subway/el, even though Metro would have more capacity, even on
arteries where there just ain't room for it without shutting the street
down entirely. Sound familiar? As a result they're going to lay off the
design-build team :-( 237 engineers --> 23 engineers in 2009.
> > > >BTW subways aren't all that expensive and would make an
> > > >alternative to elevated. Remember it wouldn't be much
> > > >longer than the deep tunnel Washington Park subway.
> > >
> > > I don't think they had to relocate an entire length of downtown's
> > > worth of utilities, and who knows what that's buried below downtown
> > > when they tunneled under the West Hills. I imagine it would get very
> > > expensive very quickly downtown.
> >
> > They have to relocate most of the utilities for MAX anyway.
> > This is the main difference from the streetcar where they just
> > had to resurface the streets.
>
> Not necessarily. They are talking about using some of the Streetcar
> construction procedures w/MAX and there are probably more utilities
> next to or further down from street tracks that would have to be delt
> with. A tunnel dig would probably be a lot wider then 1 track bed.
True dat...
-Brian R.
"brasil98@no-spam" wrote:
> The I-205 south to I-5 north interchange is two lanes wide, due to the
> amount of traffic. Are all those cars headed from Wanker's Corner to
> downtown Portland? Of course not. They are headed from eastside
> locations, such as Oregon City, West Linn, Clackamas, etc. to west side
> locations, such as Beaverton, Hillsboro, Tigard, and Tualatin. Service
> along this corridor, aside from Wilsonville's bus, is still lacking
> because TriMet thinks everyone has to go downtown first. Even
> transferring in Lake Oswego to get to Tualatin can be an hour more ordeal,
> so is it surprising that I-205 is so crowded with people coming from the
> east side?
>
> According to the state DOT, the interchange at I-5 and 217 is the busiest
> in the state. Hmm. That's odd, isn't it? 217 doesn't go to downtown,
> yet is a major source of traffic congestion on the west side. Maybe it's
> because that road goes to Beaverton and Hillsboro?
>
> Believe it or not, there are places of employment outside downtowm
> Portland, and that people need to get to work there. I don't need
> specific numbers to know that this is the case. All I have to do is open
> my eyes. Why you dont' see these things, which to me seem quite obvious,
> I can't possibly say.
Glenn, forget it... Arguing with Baxter is like butting your head
against a brick wall. He has a fanboy-level obsession with MAX,
ridership and the development generated by MAX, all of which is
in his eyes like porridge, never too big or too small but always
just right (by definition, since he would never say anything bad
about MAX). Buses and subways, on the other hand, are like
Old Europe in his eyes, mired in oldthink.
It's unfortunate that he's the most outspoken proponent of light rail
and Portland-style smart growth on misc.transport.urban-transit,
where I read these messages. It's all too easy for transit skeptics
to wind him up. It makes the rest of us look bad.
I know someone in DC with a similar mentality. Unfortunately he has
started a whole organization dedicated to promoting "transit" in the
DC area, which in his eyes means light rail and only light rail.
In a city like DC, where the combined bus/rail daily ridership exceeds
one million, you can begin to understand how silly this trolley
obsession gets. As a result, as noted in yesterdays Washington Post
there is nobody defending the WMATA engineering division which will
shortly be shut down for lack of political support.
There's a similar gent in West Philadelphia, also obsessed with
restoring the streetcar system there (a noble but quixotic goal)
and opposed to spending money competing transit plans like subway
and RR expansion (which would do far more for Philadelphia of the
future). In LA, it's the BRU and the anti-subway limousine liberals
that put transit advocacy to shame. These folks must all have some
cultural/dietary thing in common.
In these peoples' eyes, if citizens are taking trips where the
oft-proposed dinky line don't go, then the only answer is
to discourage such trips. Development patterns are ignored;
the onus is placed on the transit system to encourage development
whereever the line goes, usually some godforsaken industrial/highway
corridor; rather than spend your money on building the line through
-- or over or under -- places people actually work and live.
That way you keep the cost of the line cheap, define success downwards,
avoid having to worry about pedestrian or bus improvements beyond that
needed to serve the immediate station areas, and get to spend the money
you saved on tax breaks for "transit-friendly" developers instead!
-Brian Robinson
Jason McHuff wrote:
> > Why would they close the bus mal for construction except under the
> > assumption that rail will be built right down the bus mall medians?
> > I bet you they leave the auto lanes open during construction, BTW.
> >
> They are also going to renovate the mall. Repaving?
Good excuse for washing their hands of the bus system. WMATA did
a similar thing in the late 70's in an attempt to force people to
use the DC Metro system, which was (then) no more extensive than
MAX today (but faster). The result was that everyone abandoned
the bus system years before Metro recovered the same number of
riders.
In the 50's/60's DC's bus system was known as one of the best
in the country. Even today, DC Metro carries more riders than
many other rail systems combined -- and fewer than the system
of express, local and trolley-replacement buses carried in the
early 70's!! If they had kept the bus system they'd have room
to fit all-new riders on the now-swamped Metro. Nobody remembers
that now.
And they won't remember Portland's award-winning bus system either
once it's gone... only that transit just got built in the wrong places
and the result was an incomplete, inefficient trolley network and a
failed bus system where all the lines feed into said incomplete trolley
network. People hate feeder bus systems, cause they force transfers
for --all-- trips.
I tell ya, people's memories are short. Politicians know they can
scrap the system cause it's intangible, just like they can scrap
capital projects for subways because they haven't been built yet.
Be afraid, be very afraid, for folks like Baxter will be crowing
20 years from now how MAX ridership just exceeded the current
combined bus-rail ridership figures, with not a thought in the
world for how badly the bus system got screwed up and how many
of those riders would have taken the bus 20 years earlier (today).
That's exactly what we've done here in DC.
> > If the political situation were different, it'd be eminently feasible
> > and desirable. They funded an elevated system in Seattle at the depth
> > of the current recession. But methinks the topography (views of Mount
> > Hood) and tax situation in Portland (terrible) makes it a long shot at
> > the present time.
> >
> I still don't see how it would block views of Mt. Hood. I see it only
> blocking views of the buildings across the street.
The views are to be had on CROSS streets (on smogless days, granted
it's usually impossible unless you're up in the hills.) If MAX were
built today they could probably get away with sealing off the viewshed
on one of the 20 cross streets (Yamhill or Morrison or whatever).
But a north-south line affects views on every single cross street for
every single developer who tells people that they can see the river
from their condo balcony if they look to their right (or left).
Now I don't care about that personally, but developers do. Oh yeah
an elevated line between Pioneer Courthouse and Pioneer Courthouse
Square would be a non-starter.
A Broadway el would work, now that all the historic theater marquees
have been torn down it would only block the views of a bunch of tacky
office buildings and chains. because Broadway is nice and wide.
But the Meyerhoff (or whatever it's called) and the library are still
there and historic preservationists (who sat on their hands while the
rest of Portland's historic structures got torn down) will scream
bloody murder.
The closer you get to the water, the worse opposition to an el
would be (remember, they tore down a freeway there). West of
broadway you're not really in downtown anymore. So it's 5th
or bust, I think. Unless you run it down 405 and then cut over
to the east??
I'm not sure there's a north-south street where you could get
away with it without offending everyone to the west (cuts off
potential views of the waterfront from their front door) or
east (psychological barrier between Yamhill/Old Town district
and the downtown.)
Of course this might actually serve as a healthy corrective
to soaring property values in those two historic districts,
one of the good things about els is that they make great
semi-impermeable membranes for regulating the concentration
of yuppies. ;-)
-BER
"wrob" <wrob@no-spam> wrote in message news:3F138319.ED27F599@no-spam
> Glenn, forget it... Arguing with Baxter is like butting your head
> against a brick wall. He has a fanboy-level obsession with MAX,
> ridership and the development generated by MAX, all of which is
> in his eyes like porridge, never too big or too small but always
> just right (by definition, since he would never say anything bad
> about MAX).
It's odd that Baxter defends companies that participate in the construction
of MAX but in other posts berates the corporate tools of the Bush
administration. Does he realize that Bechtel (aka Airport MAX developers) is
a huge contractor for the reconstruction of Iraq? Dick Cheney, MAX, and
Iraq. Baxter would be gushing about what a great company Halliburton is if
only they'd have built a MAX line. Dick Cheney, friend of Portland!
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
<brasil98@no-spam> wrote in message
news:brasil98-1407031814360001@no-spam
> In article <vh5tt9isfd2r0b@no-spam>, "Baxter"
> <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > As I suspected - you have no numbers to support your wish-list.
>
>
> As I have told you before, you need to get out from in front of your
> computer, and count the number of cars that come down the hill on Taylor's
> Ferry Road to Macadam, and then cross the Sellwood bridge, between 4:30
> and 5:30 pm. If these people are working downtown, then where are they
> coming from? Taylor's Ferry Road doesn't go there, and neither does the
> Sellwood Bridge. For that matter, that particular route is a slow, round
> about way, driving wise, to get anywhere, so most of the drivers are
> either attempting to get around congested throughfares, or are coming from
> the area around Burlingame. While there are a few businesses around
> Burlingame, it is not enough to produce that type of traffic level.
You've got a choke point, not a transit route. Sure, lots of people go
across the Sellwood Bridge, but you fall far short of making that into a
transit route.
>
> Also, you need to check some of the employment figures of the metro area.
>
> For example, Intel is the largest private employer in the state. How many
> employees do they have in downtown Portland? Maybe twelve, at most? All
> of the rest are in Hillsboro, Beaverton, and nearby locations. Some
> people live in the communities where those plants are located, but guess
> what? The same thing happens with Intel as happens to employers in
> downtown Portland: people can't always live right next to where they work,
> and therefore Intel draws employees from quite far away, as do many of the
> other industries in Washington County.
The numbers vary, but OHSU (which is right next to downtown) rivals Intel.
Downtown (and its close proximity) is still the largest employment center in
the region.
>
> When SMART took over the Wilsonville transit service from TriMet, one of
> the first things they did was to add an Oregon City to Wilsonville bus
> along I-205. Guess why? Because Wilsonville happens to be a place of
> employment, and there are a lot of people who drive on I-205 to get
> there. TriMet's service only went to downtown Portland. It still only
> goes to downtown Portland.
And how many people does SMART carry on that route?
>
> The I-205 south to I-5 north interchange is two lanes wide, due to the
> amount of traffic. Are all those cars headed from Wanker's Corner to
> downtown Portland? Of course not. They are headed from eastside
> locations, such as Oregon City, West Linn, Clackamas, etc. to west side
> locations, such as Beaverton, Hillsboro, Tigard, and Tualatin. Service
> along this corridor, aside from Wilsonville's bus, is still lacking
> because TriMet thinks everyone has to go downtown first. Even
> transferring in Lake Oswego to get to Tualatin can be an hour more ordeal,
> so is it surprising that I-205 is so crowded with people coming from the
> east side?
>
> According to the state DOT, the interchange at I-5 and 217 is the busiest
> in the state. Hmm. That's odd, isn't it? 217 doesn't go to downtown,
> yet is a major source of traffic congestion on the west side. Maybe it's
> because that road goes to Beaverton and Hillsboro?
>
> Believe it or not, there are places of employment outside downtowm
> Portland, and that people need to get to work there. I don't need
> specific numbers to know that this is the case. All I have to do is open
> my eyes. Why you dont' see these things, which to me seem quite obvious,
> I can't possibly say.
>
Diffuse sources connecting to diffuse destinations do not make transit
routes.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Brian" <Witch*Dr@no-spam> wrote in message
news:8CQQa.1537$oP3.1376@no-spam
>
> "wrob" <wrob@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3F138319.ED27F599@no-spam
> > Glenn, forget it... Arguing with Baxter is like butting your head
> > against a brick wall. He has a fanboy-level obsession with MAX,
> > ridership and the development generated by MAX, all of which is
> > in his eyes like porridge, never too big or too small but always
> > just right (by definition, since he would never say anything bad
> > about MAX).
>
> It's odd that Baxter defends companies that participate in the
construction
> of MAX but in other posts berates the corporate tools of the Bush
> administration. Does he realize that Bechtel (aka Airport MAX developers)
is
> a huge contractor for the reconstruction of Iraq? Dick Cheney, MAX, and
> Iraq. Baxter would be gushing about what a great company Halliburton is if
> only they'd have built a MAX line. Dick Cheney, friend of Portland!
>
Then how is it that you berate Bechtel's involvement in AirportMAX but
defend their involvement in Iraq and other such countries.
For the record, I don't defend -Bechtel- in relation to AirportMAX. I simply
point out facts you lying neo-cons simply can't handle - that AirportMAX was
built with the Private Enterprise leading the way. That AirportMAX is not
some Public Make-Work Pork, it is a viable part of the transportation plan
for serving the needs of the Airport and the area.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"wrob" <wrob@no-spam> wrote in message news:3F138319.ED27F599@no-spam
> "brasil98@no-spam" wrote:
>
>
> Glenn, forget it... Arguing with Baxter is like butting your head
> against a brick wall. He has a fanboy-level obsession with MAX,
> ridership and the development generated by MAX, all of which is
> in his eyes like porridge, never too big or too small but always
> just right (by definition, since he would never say anything bad
> about MAX). Buses and subways, on the other hand, are like
> Old Europe in his eyes, mired in oldthink.
Nope. I am tired, however, of hearing nothing but MAX bashing.
In article <vh862klhqn304b@no-spam>, "Baxter"
<lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote:
> The numbers vary, but OHSU (which is right next to downtown) rivals Intel.
> Downtown (and its close proximity) is still the largest employment center in
> the region.
Yes, and a large portion of bus system operating improvements in the past
year or so have been to provide a system of express buses that come from
all over the metro area and terminate at OHSU, bypassing downtown Portland
because the transfer there wastes too much time, as well as operating a
special weekday only bus that goes from the Jefferson Street MAX station
to OHSU because the MAX to bus 8 connection on the transit mall is too
slow.
So, while OHSU is close to the downtown area, it apparently is too far
away to benefit too much from the transit mall. Otherwise, why all this
extra service that doesn't visit the transit mall?
Operate the expresses in both directions with OHSU also serving as a
transfer point for everyone else, and we have our regional express bus
system without doing squat to harm service in downtown Portland or any
existing routes there. Unfortunately, current operating practice
emphasises downtown Portland as a transfer location.
--
-Glenn Laubaugh
Personal Web Site: http://users.easystreet.com/glennl
In article <21f959d.0307152140.7746edb0@no-spam>,
jmchuff@no-spam (Jason McHuff) wrote:
> Not to argue against you're point, but the I-205 line is no more.
> They did start a Canby line, tho.
Yes, when Canby left TriMet they rearranged things. Canby's service is now
the line into Oregon City, so someone could go Wilsonville-Canby-Oregon
City. Really, Sandy, Molalla (the city that started the whole migration
away from the TriMet district), Canby and Wilsonville could merge their
systems and do a much better job than each city going it alone.
> TriMet is starting to do something about this. Think Hwy 217 commuter
> rail and note the fact that the symbol has been changed, which had
> arrows pointing to the center as in "all routes lead to Portland".
> Also, how does the LO transfer take more than an hour? Even there,
> the busses run hourly at worse. However, I remember checking that
> kind of travel, and it was a 1/2 hour wait, still bad.
Certainly, the changes are positive, but remember that the commuter rail
project only started because Tualatin and Wilsonville wanted people to do
something other than drive, due to the horrific traffic problems they saw
coming if things continued the way they were. TriMet's involvement has
only been relatively recent.
Before I owned a vehicle, I attempted to commute from Oregon City to
Tualatin by bus, and it took nearly two hours, with a transfer in Lake
Oswego, because at the time the bus routes between Lake O and Tualatin
were running at extremely infrequent intervals (once per two hours), as
were the routes between Oregon City and Lake Oswego. Also, I had a 20
minute walk once getting to Tualatin because at the time there was no
"Tualatin Shuttle".
Without an I-205 connection between the two transit centers, you have to
take the 35, approx 20 minutes. Then, transfer to a 36 or 37, which takes
an additional 20 minutes to get to the Tualatin Park & Ride. However,
these buses only serve a very small portion of Tualatin, and are really
designed for people using the park & ride lot to go to Portland or Lake
Oswego. To get to the rest of Tualatin, you need to either take the
Tualatin Shuttle (which didn't exist when I was doing this route) or the
96, which is an additional wait and transfer. So, even after about 10
years of improvements, it still would take nearly one hour to do this. My
guess, looking at the timetables, is that the same commute I was doing
then, that led to my purchase of an auto, would still take nearly two
hours because of the particular bus I had to take into downtown Oregon
City, that led to a series of inconvenient transfers for the four
different routes.
If you don't think that there is a Tualatin-Oregon City market, try
driving I-205 sometime and watch where the cars leave the highway and
where they enter. I was one of them for a few brief months, until I got a
more tolerable job.
--
-Glenn Laubaugh
Personal Web Site: http://users.easystreet.com/glennl
In article <vh9l5ko0badr01@no-spam>, "Baxter"
<lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote:
> Wonder what you have against downtown? Downtown still has the largest
> concentration of jobs in the region - yet you don't want to serve it.
Now then Baxter, I never said I didn't want to serve downtown. What I
want is a faster transfer through downtown for those who are not going
there. Putting MAX on the transit mall will slow things up for both MAX
riders and bus riders, and provide somewhat slower service for both those
going to downtown as well as those trying to get elsewhere. Its progress
in the wrong direction from what I want.
Just because something doesn't run on the transit mall doesn't mean that
it doesn't go downtown.
Witness, for example, the existing MAX lines, or the bus #15 or #51 or #20
or a few others that do not run on the transit mall. Instead, they cross
the transit mall so that it is reasonably easy to transfer to them.
As I say, I am trying to come up with something better than the current
plan, but it isn't complete yet.
Here are some things that I am considering as my preferred option, but as
I said, they are incomplete:
1. Rebuild the central city streetcar line to be able to accept either the
Skoda cars or a single car MAX train. (Currently, the Central City
Streetcar line is very narrow, and the cars used have only 1+2 seating
rather than 2+2 seating due to the width restrictions for cars operating
on this line). Run the Interstate MAX train on the existing MAX line,
which has capacity for two car trains, rather than on the new line.
Transfer the Red line trains, which are single car trains, to the Central
City streetcar line, for getting them through downtown.
The Good News: This eliminates the MAX line from the Transit Mall, and it
would connect Union Station to the airport for those travelers who do a
mode change in Portland (a limited market, but airport to train traffic is
one part of what goes on here). The Bad News: the Red line would not
cross the transit mall anywhere, though it is just a short walk away.
However, buses terminating downtown largely terminate at Union Station,
and those that continue past downtown would cross this line at the
Coluseum Transit Center or many other locations, so this may not be an
issue. Also the line to Milwaukie becomes more difficult to add into this
scheme. Possible solution: just connect the two on 1st Avenue, giving a
very good north-south connection without having to go into the congested
heart of downtown.
2. Put the new line down 4th Avenue. The good news: most utilities would
not have to be relocated like the are for other street construction,
because Southern Pacific Red Electric trains used to operate on that
street between Beaverton & Corvallis and Union Station. In fact, until a
few months ago, it was still possible to see a short section of the double
track line north of Everett. It has now been paved over. So, there is
probably a fair amount of track sitting under that street even now, and
certainly if the roadbed can take a Southern Pacific Red Electric train it
should be able to take a MAX car. If the line has to run all the way to
PSU to satisfy their desires, then the line is going to also connect to
such bus routes as the #54, #56, and #1 at PSU. The Bad News: the line
will not connect to bus route #58, and when the SP was operating trains on
this street the one-way street grid was not in effect, so that traffic
flow on 4th would have to be changed a bit to accomodate the new scheme.
3. Extend the line on SW 1st Ave then cut over on the Central City
Streetcar tracks near PSU. Good News: cheaper because it is closer to the
south end of downtown. Also has the potential of bringing Red Line trains
closer to the various hotels at the south end of downtown. Bad News: does
not serve Union Station or many of the other areas TriMet wants to serve
with this line.
4. Some combination of the above that would produce a loop through
downtown. Red Line trains already lay over at the airport. Do they
really need to lay over a second time? The Good News: a loop would serve
a larger area. The Bad News: loops are a problem if operated on an
infrequent basis because they decrease service. They are really a problem
if operated only in one direction because someone at, say, the Old Town
station would have to ride all the way around the loop to get where they
are going.
Again, all of this is incomplete, so there are many holes, but I think
that it is possible to develop an alternative that does not screw up the
transit mall.
--
-Glenn Laubaugh
Personal Web Site: http://users.easystreet.com/glennl
wrob <wrob@no-spam> wrote in message news:<3F138F95.1270DD90@no-spam>...
> Jason McHuff wrote:
>
> > > Why would they close the bus mal for construction except under the
> > > assumption that rail will be built right down the bus mall medians?
> > > I bet you they leave the auto lanes open during construction, BTW.
> > >
> > They are also going to renovate the mall. Repaving?
>
> Good excuse for washing their hands of the bus system.
The closure is temp. And not the whole mall at once.
http://www.trimet.org/promotions/pdf/construction_management.pdf
...
> > > If the political situation were different, it'd be eminently feasible
> > > and desirable. They funded an elevated system in Seattle at the depth
> > > of the current recession. But methinks the topography (views of Mount
> > > Hood) and tax situation in Portland (terrible) makes it a long shot at
> > > the present time.
> > >
> > I still don't see how it would block views of Mt. Hood. I see it only
> > blocking views of the buildings across the street.
>
> The views are to be had on CROSS streets (on smogless days, granted
> it's usually impossible unless you're up in the hills.) If MAX were
> built today they could probably get away with sealing off the viewshed
> on one of the 20 cross streets (Yamhill or Morrison or whatever).
>
> But a north-south line affects views on every single cross street for
> every single developer who tells people that they can see the river
> from their condo balcony if they look to their right (or left).
>
I now see your point. An el structure shouldn't be that big; however,
I agree that it could well be an annoyance in trying to look at the
river. As you note, that could be a big issue w/developers.
> Now I don't care about that personally, but developers do. Oh yeah
> an elevated line between Pioneer Courthouse and Pioneer Courthouse
> Square would be a non-starter.
Another reason not to use 6th... Good news is that the streetcar is
that way also on a N-S route.
--Jason McHuff, Salem, OR
Baxter wrote:
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "wrob" <wrob@no-spam> wrote in message news:3F138319.ED27F599@no-spam
> > "brasil98@no-spam" wrote:
> >
> >
> > Glenn, forget it... Arguing with Baxter is like butting your head
> > against a brick wall. He has a fanboy-level obsession with MAX,
> > ridership and the development generated by MAX, all of which is
> > in his eyes like porridge, never too big or too small but always
> > just right (by definition, since he would never say anything bad
> > about MAX). Buses and subways, on the other hand, are like
> > Old Europe in his eyes, mired in oldthink.
>
> Nope. I am tired, however, of hearing nothing but MAX bashing.
Look, I know how it can be especially since I am not the most
articulate flamer when it comes to responding to anti-transit
(and anti-affordable housing, etc.) troglodytes. But I'm simply
saying try not to see everything in black and white. Give them
the benefit of the doubt. Buses are the great shibboleth to which
every rail skeptic worth his salt chooses to appeal to. Well,
guess what? Portland has a GREAT bus system. Let's not begin
to dismantle it until MAX is anywhere near as extensive. Don't
give them an excuse to poison the well. Cutting back the bus
system to make MAX workable on the bus mall (or wherever) will
not help MAX politically in the long-term. And since MAX is
likely to remain at-capacity with "choice" riders, it actually
reduces TriMet's overall capacity, leaving "inner city" bus
riders out in the cold, even if the schediles remain the same.
Cutting out a few turn lanes and leaving the bus lines unaffected
is a much better idea.
And oh yeah, LRT is not necessarily the only possible transit
tech out there. If we start to assume we can only afford LRT
because of Republican opposition, then politicians of all
stripes will quickly TAKE that rope and hang us with BRT or
nothing in response to us bending over backwards. As they're
now doing here in Maryland with the Purple Line.
Dallas got it right -- they almost succeeded in funding a
subway system, a tiny part of which actually got built --
and a lot more light rail. A lot more than if they'd
started out pushing for an extension of the streetcar!
We have to stop relying on bizarre public private development
funding efforts and start appealing to the masses. LRT is not
always what the masses may actually choose to ride -- they may
prefer buses or subways and, in Seattle, elevated (although
they're getting an "LRT" subway that they didn't want.) In some
cities it may be perfect technology while in others it's too little,
too late to make an impact.
Generally speaking, if you have to grade-separate most of the line
in order to make it at all useful, it's better to start out with
heavy rail or ALRT. Unless all of your surface running is in the
suburbs -- in which case a streetcar subway makes the most sense.
-BER
Baxter wrote:
> The numbers vary, but OHSU (which is right next to downtown) rivals Intel.
> Downtown (and its close proximity) is still the largest employment center in
> the region.
I'm a little unclear on the geography, but is there any chance a
Milwaukie line would go past pill hill? Perhaps with a funicular
connection?
-BER
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"wrob" <wrob@no-spam> wrote in message news:3F14D09D.834EC5E2@no-spam
> Baxter wrote:
> >
> > "wrob" <wrob@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3F138319.ED27F599@no-spam
> > > "brasil98@no-spam" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Glenn, forget it... Arguing with Baxter is like butting your head
> > > against a brick wall. He has a fanboy-level obsession with MAX,
> > > ridership and the development generated by MAX, all of which is
> > > in his eyes like porridge, never too big or too small but always
> > > just right (by definition, since he would never say anything bad
> > > about MAX). Buses and subways, on the other hand, are like
> > > Old Europe in his eyes, mired in oldthink.
> >
> > Nope. I am tired, however, of hearing nothing but MAX bashing.
>
> Look, I know how it can be especially since I am not the most
> articulate flamer when it comes to responding to anti-transit
> (and anti-affordable housing, etc.) troglodytes. But I'm simply
> saying try not to see everything in black and white. Give them
> the benefit of the doubt. Buses are the great shibboleth to which
> every rail skeptic worth his salt chooses to appeal to. Well,
> guess what? Portland has a GREAT bus system.
You've got me mixed up with someone else then - because I've NEVER advocated
cutting back the bus system.
>Let's not begin
> to dismantle it until MAX is anywhere near as extensive. Don't
> give them an excuse to poison the well. Cutting back the bus
> system to make MAX workable on the bus mall (or wherever) will
> not help MAX politically in the long-term. And since MAX is
> likely to remain at-capacity with "choice" riders, it actually
> reduces TriMet's overall capacity, leaving "inner city" bus
> riders out in the cold, even if the schediles remain the same.
I don't agree. InterstateMAX will redistribute those bus hours - overall
capacity will be RAISED - just as it was with WestsideMAX.
> Cutting out a few turn lanes and leaving the bus lines unaffected
> is a much better idea.
You're confusing the bus system with the bus mall. Do clarify your
thinking.
>
> And oh yeah, LRT is not necessarily the only possible transit
> tech out there. If we start to assume we can only afford LRT
> because of Republican opposition, then politicians of all
> stripes will quickly TAKE that rope and hang us with BRT or
> nothing in response to us bending over backwards. As they're
> now doing here in Maryland with the Purple Line.
>
> Dallas got it right -- they almost succeeded in funding a
> subway system, a tiny part of which actually got built --
> and a lot more light rail. A lot more than if they'd
> started out pushing for an extension of the streetcar!
>
> We have to stop relying on bizarre public private development
> funding efforts and start appealing to the masses. LRT is not
> always what the masses may actually choose to ride -- they may
> prefer buses or subways and, in Seattle, elevated (although
> they're getting an "LRT" subway that they didn't want.) In some
> cities it may be perfect technology while in others it's too little,
> too late to make an impact.
>
> Generally speaking, if you have to grade-separate most of the line
> in order to make it at all useful, it's better to start out with
> heavy rail or ALRT. Unless all of your surface running is in the
> suburbs -- in which case a streetcar subway makes the most sense.
>
In Portland, MAX makes sense. Running on the surface. Putting a subway
downtown is simply too expensive at this time. Surface lines help sell the
concept to the people.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
<brasil98@no-spam> wrote in message
news:brasil98-1507032122120001@no-spam
> In article <vh862klhqn304b@no-spam>, "Baxter"
> <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > The numbers vary, but OHSU (which is right next to downtown) rivals
Intel.
> > Downtown (and its close proximity) is still the largest employment
center in
> > the region.
>
>
> Yes, and a large portion of bus system operating improvements in the past
> year or so have been to provide a system of express buses that come from
> all over the metro area and terminate at OHSU, bypassing downtown Portland
> because the transfer there wastes too much time, as well as operating a
> special weekday only bus that goes from the Jefferson Street MAX station
> to OHSU because the MAX to bus 8 connection on the transit mall is too
> slow.
>
> So, while OHSU is close to the downtown area, it apparently is too far
> away to benefit too much from the transit mall. Otherwise, why all this
> extra service that doesn't visit the transit mall?
How is it that you identify the entire metro transit system with just the
mall?
>
> Operate the expresses in both directions with OHSU also serving as a
> transfer point for everyone else, and we have our regional express bus
> system without doing squat to harm service in downtown Portland or any
> existing routes there. Unfortunately, current operating practice
> emphasises downtown Portland as a transfer location.
Wonder what you have against downtown? Downtown still has the largest
concentration of jobs in the region - yet you don't want to serve it.
david parsons wrote:
> In article <3F12E241.D8617300@no-spam>, wrob <wrob@no-spam> wrote:
> >Jason McHuff wrote:
> >
> >> I think I brought something like that up and I know he said that the
> >> businesses really want the auto lanes.
> >
> >You know, I heard that the hundred thousand bus riders really want
> >the existing bus system. I guess they can't have it because two or
> >three businesses with political clout want "eyeballs" which bus riders
> >presumably do not have.
>
> I must have missed the Tri-Met meeting where they said that they
> were planning on shutting the bus system down. When did this
> meeting happen?
If they're going to build N/S Max I assume they're actually going to
want to USE it at some point, not just run trains once every 15 mins.
With that assumption in mind, putting the trains in the middle lane
of the bus mall, with station stops in the blocks where the left
hand auto-only turn lanes do not exist, would totally disrupt
service on the bus mall for all busses on the mall, not just
the ones immediately in front or behind the trains.
Buses in a bus terminal (which is the bus mall -- a big long bus
terminal with an average of 1.3 buses at every stop at rush hour,
with two bus stops per block in almost every block) do not travel
like car lanes, they move in a continual "leapfrog" fashion and
can't really go anywhere in the right hand stopping lane if even
a single bus is stopped anywhere along the line. But they also
can't keep pace with the MAX trains and adhere to their scheduled
pullover points with all the other buses trying to pass them, so
this is a serious problem. It's comparable to trying to run high
speed rail on a busy freight corridor with one thru-track and one
continouous layover track.
(The bus mall is a one-way pair of 3-lane streets with a discontinuous
auto-only left hand turn lane and a continuous right hand stopping lane.
They don't even bother to stripe the two bus lanes because they're used
so interchangeably.)
Putting trains in the left hand, auto-only turn lane, which is
currently discontinuous and interrupted by extra-wide empty
sidewalks on the blocks where they want to put the stops,
would seem to be far more sensible. Grade separation would
be best for ridership, if it were only politically feasible...
-BER
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"wrob" <wrob@no-spam> wrote in message news:3F14D119.9BA7A4DB@no-spam
> Baxter wrote:
>
> > The numbers vary, but OHSU (which is right next to downtown) rivals
Intel.
> > Downtown (and its close proximity) is still the largest employment
center in
> > the region.
>
> I'm a little unclear on the geography, but is there any chance a
> Milwaukie line would go past pill hill? Perhaps with a funicular
> connection?
>
Obstacals: bridges. Most of the bridges are downtown. The only bridge south
of downtown that still serves Milwaukie, is blocked from OHSU by the
freeway. The 65, however, does run a roundabout route to serve both Marquam
Hill and Milwaukie.
wrob <wrob@no-spam> wrote in message news:<3F138319.ED27F599@no-spam>...
...
> I know someone in DC with a similar mentality. Unfortunately he has
> started a whole organization dedicated to promoting "transit" in the
> DC area, which in his eyes means light rail and only light rail.
> In a city like DC, where the combined bus/rail daily ridership exceeds
> one million, you can begin to understand how silly this trolley
> obsession gets. As a result, as noted in yesterdays Washington Post
> there is nobody defending the WMATA engineering division which will
> shortly be shut down for lack of political support.
>
> There's a similar gent in West Philadelphia, also obsessed with
> restoring the streetcar system there (a noble but quixotic goal)
> and opposed to spending money competing transit plans like subway
> and RR expansion (which would do far more for Philadelphia of the
> future). In LA, it's the BRU and the anti-subway limousine liberals
> that put transit advocacy to shame. These folks must all have some
> cultural/dietary thing in common.
>
> In these peoples' eyes, if citizens are taking trips where the
> oft-proposed dinky line don't go, then the only answer is
> to discourage such trips. Development patterns are ignored;
> the onus is placed on the transit system to encourage development
> whereever the line goes, usually some godforsaken industrial/highway
> corridor; rather than spend your money on building the line through
> -- or over or under -- places people actually work and live.
>
> That way you keep the cost of the line cheap, define success downwards,
> avoid having to worry about pedestrian or bus improvements beyond that
> needed to serve the immediate station areas, and get to spend the money
> you saved on tax breaks for "transit-friendly" developers instead!
>
Nice examples of how politics and subsidies have put form, etc, over
function, which is the important part.
--Jason McHuff, Salem, OR
brasil98@no-spam (brasil98@no-spam wrote in message news:<brasil98-1407031814360001@no-spam>...
...
> The same thing happens with Intel as happens to employers in
> downtown Portland: people can't always live right next to where they work,
> and therefore Intel draws employees from quite far away, as do many of the
> other industries in Washington County.
>
This is the real problem.
> When SMART took over the Wilsonville transit service from TriMet, one of
> the first things they did was to add an Oregon City to Wilsonville bus
> along I-205. Guess why? Because Wilsonville happens to be a place of
> employment, and there are a lot of people who drive on I-205 to get
> there. TriMet's service only went to downtown Portland. It still only
> goes to downtown Portland.
>
Not to argue against you're point, but the I-205 line is no more.
They did start a Canby line, tho.
> The I-205 south to I-5 north interchange is two lanes wide, due to the
> amount of traffic. Are all those cars headed from Wanker's Corner to
> downtown Portland? Of course not. They are headed from eastside
> locations, such as Oregon City, West Linn, Clackamas, etc. to west side
> locations, such as Beaverton, Hillsboro, Tigard, and Tualatin. Service
> along this corridor, aside from Wilsonville's bus, is still lacking
> because TriMet thinks everyone has to go downtown first. Even
> transferring in Lake Oswego to get to Tualatin can be an hour more ordeal,
> so is it surprising that I-205 is so crowded with people coming from the
> east side?
TriMet is starting to do something about this. Think Hwy 217 commuter
rail and note the fact that the symbol has been changed, which had
arrows pointing to the center as in "all routes lead to Portland".
Also, how does the LO transfer take more than an hour? Even there,
the busses run hourly at worse. However, I remember checking that
kind of travel, and it was a 1/2 hour wait, still bad.
...
--Jason McHuff, Salem, OR
Dateline: pdx.general, Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:31:28 -0400.
wrob <wrob@no-spam> wrote:
>david parsons wrote:
>
>> In article <3F12E241.D8617300@no-spam>, wrob <wrob@no-spam> wrote:
>> >Jason McHuff wrote:
>> >
>> >> I think I brought something like that up and I know he said that the
>> >> businesses really want the auto lanes.
>> >
>> >You know, I heard that the hundred thousand bus riders really want
>> >the existing bus system. I guess they can't have it because two or
>> >three businesses with political clout w