I sent this to trimetlightrail@no-spam yesterday. [Stuff added]
Has anyone considered elevating MAX thru downtown and changing the
route somewhat?
It seems like now, it really doesn't take the most effective route.
After all, it follows the edge of downtown next to the river and then
cuts across north of a lot of the major buildings.
While putting MAX on the [bus] mall would solve some of these
problems, it would mean some confusion with the two lines and would
still require many people to transfer to get to their destination.
My idea is to have it basically follow the proposed route but have
both ways go above the same street, meaning that 1 station would be
required instead of 2. Also, I would move the Pioneer Square and
Union Station stops north 1 block.
[See http://www.trimet.org/improving/images/tmallmap.gif ]
Moreover, west side trains would go in/out above Jefferson St. A spur
would drop down to 18th Street and the present Kings Hill station to
serve PGE Park. Non-west side trains could end here.
West side trains would drop down to grade level and the tunnel just
west of 20th Ave. At the other end, the elevated portion would simply
go on to the Steel Bridge.
It seems like it would be a really good idea and provide benefits for
all parties involved.
For transit riders, it would mean much faster trips (esp. from the
west side to the Rose Garden/Lloyd Dist.) because the right of way
would be exclusive and because there could be fewer stops.
Also, it would mean that more places could be served without needing a
transfer. These include Union Station, City Hall, the courthouse,
South Park Blocks, the art museum and the history center.
All trains could use the same set of stations.
For auto users, peds and bikers, it would mean safer and easier
getting around because they (esp. autos) would not have to worry about
the trains and associated restrictions.
For businesses' customers, they would have a faster and better way to
get downtown and they would not have to worry about trains in getting
to the businesses.
It would NOT look like Chicago but instead of like the bridges here.
[It would, along with platform lengthing, also allow >2 car trains.
Also, it would be a lot easier then a subway, think digging and
utility relocation. It just means putting some piers in the ground
and putting a track bed on them.
--Jason, McHuff, Salem, OR]
Dateline: pdx.general, 30 Jun 2003 23:04:25 -0700.
jmchuff@no-spam (Jason McHuff) wrote:
>I sent this to trimetlightrail@no-spam yesterday. [Stuff added]
>
>Has anyone considered elevating MAX thru downtown and changing the
>route somewhat?
They've looked at that and also making MAX a subway downtown. So says
TriMet's Lynn Peterson, who gave a presentation for a class I took.
The TriMet consensus seems to be that eventually downtown will get
congested with MAX trains and vehicle traffic and they'll have to put
MAX somewhere else, it will be hideously expensive no matter what they
do, and they'll cross that bridge when they get there.
So in other words, it'll cost a heck of a lot to move the MAX, so why
worry about it until downtown is gridlock.
>It seems like it would be a really good idea and provide benefits for
>all parties involved.
Unless you're handicapped and can't take the up/down stairs. I think
the ADA would require each stop above/below ground to be equipped with
an elevator, like all those stops along I-84 do. That would get
expensive.
I've never seen Chicago's elevated trains, I don't know what they do
about this over in the windy city.
It's a neat idea, but TriMet would have to hit the Powerball lotto to
finance it though.
Personally, I think they need to make it a subway, and triple-track
the lines so there is an express train that makes only 1 or 2 stops
downtown, like at Pioneer Square and maybe somewhere else, and
continue the triple-tracks to a midway point on each end, like Gateway
TC and Beaverton or Sunset TC. Of course, this would probably have a
pricetag even more then the Boston Big Dig and it'll never happen.
--
Aaron `Katt` O'Donnell
http://www.aaroncity.com
Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell <pdxkatt@no-spam> writes:
> MAX somewhere else, it will be hideously expensive no matter what they
> do, and they'll cross that bridge when they get there.
>
> So in other words, it'll cost a heck of a lot to move the MAX, so why
> worry about it until downtown is gridlock.
I think that it's better to plan for the future now, but
unfortunately, that's more expensive in the short term, and the
voter aren't exactly in a spending mood.
I think moving Max underground from the beginning is very
prudent, especially for any N-S route through downtown.
Alas, I'm not holding my breath.
I am glad to see that Airport trains are being extended to
Beaverton TC.
Darrell
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Jason McHuff" <jmchuff@no-spam> wrote in message
news:21f959d.0307010819.9fed57f@no-spam
> wrob <wrob@no-spam> wrote in message
news:<3F012BD9.27EC055@no-spam>...
> > Fascinating! I'll have to learn more about the context of the
> > proposed line... as in, when did they decide it was possible
> > to route FOUR slow-going MAX lines on the Steel Bridge? And
>
> I have been wondering about that myself since the trains do have to go
> very slow getting on/off the part that gets raised.
InterstateMAX includes upgrades to the Steel bridge that will allow the
trains to go faster over the span.
>I was thinking of
> building a new bridge next to the Steel Bridge. Should they have done
> this in the first place, since I think they had to do a lot of $$$
> work on the bridge?
>
> > As for nothing like Chicago, no, it'll look like the bridges
> > in Portland, even more redolent of the 19th century... ;-)
>
> The idea was that people think elevated railway = dark streets of
> Chicago. I think that a elevated MAX would be quite narrower.
>
> Lastly, expense-wise, could they get the Feds to pay for it as part of
> the mall redo? Also, the Interstate Long (now Vanport) Bridge didn't
> cost THAT much, which this would be like.
>
The Vanport bridge is over much cheaper land than downtown - and there would
be a lot more impact on Air Rights.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Brian" <Witch*Dr@no-spam> wrote in message
news:MmoMa.645$AK1.170@no-spam
> "Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell" <pdxkatt@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:e8d2gv42min5oqeige68hur5niji03it83@no-spam
> > Dateline: pdx.general, 30 Jun 2003 23:04:25 -0700.
> > The TriMet consensus seems to be that eventually downtown will get
> > congested with MAX trains and vehicle traffic and they'll have to put
> > MAX somewhere else
>
> How ironic......wasn't MAX supposed to eliminate congestion downtown?
>
Sez who? Do provide a link where any official promised that MAX would
forever eliminate congestion downtown. I'm sure you'll find many instances
of this claim made by the anti-transit types, but finding that claim being
made in any of the documentation for the project is a different matter.
'Course, that claim has been made so many times that people have come to
believe TriMet made it - just like most people believe that Saddam had a
personal hand in 9/11.
On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 01:04:53 -0700, Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell
<pdxkatt@no-spam> wrote:
>>Has anyone considered elevating MAX thru downtown and changing the
>>route somewhat?
-snip-
>The TriMet consensus seems to be that eventually downtown will get
>congested with MAX trains and vehicle traffic and they'll have to put
>MAX somewhere else, it will be hideously expensive no matter what they
>do, and they'll cross that bridge when they get there.
How about a congestion charge, equivalent to a typical MAX day or
return fare multiplied by the number of seats in the vehicle? :-)
PC
Baxter wrote:
> The Vanport bridge is over much cheaper land than downtown - and there would
> be a lot more impact on Air Rights.
Baxter, I notice you don't seem to care about the disappearance of
the bus-only passing lane, rendering the Bus Mall useless for buses.
Assuming you ever take the bus, which carries most Portland transit
riders, you'd know that ALL bus movement in the Bus Mall takes place
in the bus-only middle "passing" lane, since there are ALWAYS buses
stopped immediately ahead (two buses or more per block in rush hour).
Typical! And typical nearsightedness on the part of car-worshiping
urban planners who think the auto-only turn lanes, interrupted only
by stretches of extra-wide sidewalk, are worth saving.
-BER
jmchuff@no-spam (Jason McHuff) writes:
> It would NOT look like Chicago but instead of like the bridges here.
How is that a good thing?
--
Jordan Bettis <http://www.hafd.org/~jordanb>
The economy is doing fine, but the people aren't.
-- General Emelio Medici, head-of-state of Brazil, 1971
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"wrob" <wrob@no-spam> wrote in message news:3F02390F.937CFF08@no-spam
> Baxter wrote:
>
> > The Vanport bridge is over much cheaper land than downtown - and there
would
> > be a lot more impact on Air Rights.
>
> Baxter, I notice you don't seem to care about the disappearance of
> the bus-only passing lane, rendering the Bus Mall useless for buses.
Actually, I made no comment at all about the bus-only passing lane. All I
commented on was the relative cost of elevating in downtown versus Vanport.
>
> Assuming you ever take the bus, which carries most Portland transit
> riders, you'd know that ALL bus movement in the Bus Mall takes place
> in the bus-only middle "passing" lane, since there are ALWAYS buses
> stopped immediately ahead (two buses or more per block in rush hour).
>
> Typical! And typical nearsightedness on the part of car-worshiping
> urban planners who think the auto-only turn lanes, interrupted only
> by stretches of extra-wide sidewalk, are worth saving.
>
I saw some drawings outlining several different options they were
considering. I don't recall the details. I also don't think they've
settled on a particular layout yet. I think some of your criticisms are
premature.
...
> > I have been wondering about that myself since the trains do have to go
> > very slow getting on/off the part that gets raised.
>
> InterstateMAX includes upgrades to the Steel bridge that will allow the
> trains to go faster over the span.
>
I didn't know that. It doesn't seem like they've done them yet. Have they?
...
> > Lastly, expense-wise, could they get the Feds to pay for it as part of
> > the mall redo? Also, the Interstate Long (now Vanport) Bridge didn't
> > cost THAT much, which this would be like.
> >
> The Vanport bridge is over much cheaper land than downtown - and there would
> be a lot more impact on Air Rights.
I was thinking of having it be totally over streets.
--Jason McHuff, Salem, OR
wrob <wrob@no-spam> wrote in message news:<3F01CA0C.5A7788D1@no-spam>...
...
> By "passing" they really mean "all movement of buses", cause once
> they get in the curbside lane (right or left) they are stopped.
Not necessarily. If there were less busses, they could just move and
stop at the same time, using only one lane.
...
Also, thanks for the lanes design, Aaron.
--Jason McHuff, Salem, OR
Christ, haven't we spent enough on trains downtown already? Would it kill
you to walk a bit? I'm all for mass transit (though I think Tri-Met has
some real quality control issues when it comes to drivers) but enough is
enough. For the price of a project like this, we could offer enhanced bus
service to a LOT of people, or patch/fix.enhance some roadways to make them
safer and more capable of handling modern traffic loads (traffic including
all legal users of the road).
"Jason McHuff" <jmchuff@no-spam> wrote in message
news:21f959d.0306302204.1c24801e@no-spam
> I sent this to trimetlightrail@no-spam yesterday. [Stuff added]
>
> Has anyone considered elevating MAX thru downtown and changing the
> route somewhat?
>
>
Jason McHuff wrote:
>
> wrob <wrob@no-spam> wrote in message news:<3F01CA0C.5A7788D1@no-spam>...
> ...
> > By "passing" they really mean "all movement of buses", cause once
> > they get in the curbside lane (right or left) they are stopped.
>
> Not necessarily. If there were less busses, they could just move and
> stop at the same time, using only one lane.
Do you actually WANT less buses? That is not the way to increase transit
ridership; it'd destroy the nation's best bus system. Even here in DC,
whose subway carries more riders than just about every light rail line
put together, ridership depends on a bus system that carries the same
number of people as the Metro carries -- with only partial overlap.
You'll find the same is true in Portland, especially since you're affecting
only a single bus division (the Beaver division, IIRC), and that only after
the line is extended. and riders in the central Eastside will STILL need
many of those buses.
Point being, you dont want to wish such a fate on the entire bus system
simply to make room for a collector/distributor rail loop. As long as
there are any buses within 5 minutes of each other, they will need the
center lane for constant leapfrogging -- thats how every bus terminal works...
OTOH, it may be possible to simply wait for the MAX to pass by, but
it's not the most optimal solution... and from the MAX perspective
it'll be heavy traffic.
-BER
Baxter wrote:
> > Typical! And typical nearsightedness on the part of car-worshiping
> > urban planners who think the auto-only turn lanes, interrupted only
> > by stretches of extra-wide sidewalk, are worth saving.
> >
>
> I saw some drawings outlining several different options they were
> considering. I don't recall the details. I also don't think they've
> settled on a particular layout yet. I think some of your criticisms are
> premature.
Of course, this is Usenet.
Besides I'm 3000 miles away so it can't hurt.
:-)
"Alan Peterman" <al@no-spam> wrote in message
> Have you noticed that public money is in short supply?? This would be a
project
> costing 10's of millions of dollars, for a quite minimal improvement.
>
> It's not even worthwhile to even do a study on such a thing.
My wife said just the other day she'd take an express train from here in
Gresham to Beaverton if such a thing existed. She tried Light Rail but it
takes a hell of a long time from Gresham to her workplace with all the
stops, and it's so crowded during rush hour she had to stand the whole time.
An elevated express route (or a tunnel) is a great idea, but the city simply
can't fund such a thing right now.
-gatt
jmchuff@no-spam (Jason McHuff) writes:
> Nexus7 <ac25kV@no-spam> wrote in message news:<a2340e2947a021a847143399efe62056@no-spam>...
> > On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 23:04:25 -0700, Jason McHuff wrote:
> > > It would NOT look like Chicago but instead of like the bridges here.
> >
> > Can you be more precise? Which aspect of the bridges in Chicago?
>
> I meant the elevated trains in Chicago and how they make the streets
> dark. There are light rail bridges in Portland which aren't that bad.
When was the last time you were on a street under an L? They're not
that dark.
--
Jordan Bettis <http://www.hafd.org/~jordanb>
An idealist is a person who helps other people to be prosperous.
-- Henry Ford.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Jason McHuff" <jmchuff@no-spam> wrote in message
news:21f959d.0307012035.16017ae9@no-spam
> ...
> > > I have been wondering about that myself since the trains do have to go
> > > very slow getting on/off the part that gets raised.
> >
> > InterstateMAX includes upgrades to the Steel bridge that will allow the
> > trains to go faster over the span.
> >
> I didn't know that. It doesn't seem like they've done them yet. Have
they?
> ...
> > > Lastly, expense-wise, could they get the Feds to pay for it as part of
> > > the mall redo? Also, the Interstate Long (now Vanport) Bridge didn't
> > > cost THAT much, which this would be like.
> > >
> > The Vanport bridge is over much cheaper land than downtown - and there
would
> > be a lot more impact on Air Rights.
>
> I was thinking of having it be totally over streets.
>
You've obviously not seen the Vanport Bridge - the support columns would
effectively block the streets.
wrob <wrob@no-spam> wrote in message news:<3F026F88.87D4F515@no-spam>...
> Jason McHuff wrote:
> >
> > wrob <wrob@no-spam> wrote in message news:<3F01CA0C.5A7788D1@no-spam>...
> > ...
> > > By "passing" they really mean "all movement of buses", cause once
> > > they get in the curbside lane (right or left) they are stopped.
> >
> > Not necessarily. If there were less busses, they could just move and
> > stop at the same time, using only one lane.
>
> Do you actually WANT less buses? ...
I never meant that I thought it would be a good idea. My point was
simply that 1 bus lane COULD work, but I've seen pictures showing way
too many busses for it to work and be practical.
Overall, this can be another reason to elevate MAX. However, from
what I'm reading here, I think having it on the ground MAY work. They
are talking about having the bus stops spread out more and should mean
places where only 1 lane is needed because there would be no stops.
This is probably where the MAX will stop.
Lastly, at least at first, there will only be Interstate MAX there,
w/1 train every 10-15 minutes.
--Jason McHuff, Salem, OR
brasil98@no-spam (brasil98@no-spam wrote in message news:<brasil98-0107032303250001@no-spam>...
> When I proposed elevated MAX lines through in a post here about two months
> ago, I proposed the Detroit people mover as an excellent example of what
> an elevated rail line can look like under the best of circumstances. Its
> hardly an ugly overwhealming structure.
>
Proves my point that elevated != Chicago
> The problem is that there is a plan, about 10 years old, about where they
> "need" to have all these rail transit lines on street-level in downtown
> Portland. The goal is to have slow ponderous service throughout downtown
> because that is what the developers want to see, because this supposedly
> helps street level storefronts.
>
It also supossidly helps make the streets livelier w/people waiting
for the train.
> Remember, the reason why all of a sudden light rail on the transit mall is
> an issue is because certain downtown businesses are pushing for it there.
>
> Therefore, trying to increase transit service really isn't the issue that
> is being addressed by putting the trains on the transit mall, and it is
> doubtful we are ever going to see any meaningful increase in train speed
> through there.
Well, I do think that the present system is near capacity and does not
serve downtown well. Instead it keeps to the sides and goes across at
not the best place.
Also, BER/wrob and all, I agree that MAX should not have priority over
a functioning BUS mall. However, it sounds like it may not. If you
want to find out for sure, open houses are comming up on the 8-10th,
http://www.trimet.org/meetings/mallrevitalization.htm .
--Jason McHuff, Salem, OR
Jordan Bettis <unpost@no-spam> wrote in message news:<87fzlp9knp.fsf@no-spam>...
> jmchuff@no-spam (Jason McHuff) writes:
>
> > Nexus7 <ac25kV@no-spam> wrote in message news:<a2340e2947a021a847143399efe62056@no-spam>...
> > > On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 23:04:25 -0700, Jason McHuff wrote:
> > > > It would NOT look like Chicago but instead of like the bridges here.
> > >
> > > Can you be more precise? Which aspect of the bridges in Chicago?
> >
> > I meant the elevated trains in Chicago and how they make the streets
> > dark. There are light rail bridges in Portland which aren't that bad.
>
> When was the last time you were on a street under an L? They're not
> that dark.
A couple of years ago. Even if it isn't that bad, I think Portlanders
would (be made to) think that an elevated line would "bring down the
street". But there is the rain...
--Jason McHuff, Salem, OR
Jordan Bettis <unpost@no-spam> wrote in message news:<87wuf1sloy.fsf@no-spam>...
> jmchuff@no-spam (Jason McHuff) writes:
>
> > It would NOT look like Chicago but instead of like the bridges here.
>
> How is that a good thing?
The streets wouldn't be so covered up because an elevated light rail
should be thinner.
---Jason McHuff, Salem, OR
or they could just run something along 205 and merge with some of the other
transit locations.. i know there was a proposal to have the max share lines
with some the rails to make it down to willsonvile or something along those
lines.. making a loop from downtown down I5 to 205 back up to gateway woud
be nice.
"Jason McHuff" <jmchuff@no-spam> wrote in message
news:21f959d.0306302204.1c24801e@no-spam
> I sent this to trimetlightrail@no-spam yesterday. [Stuff added]
>
> Has anyone considered elevating MAX thru downtown and changing the
> route somewhat?
>
> It seems like now, it really doesn't take the most effective route.
> After all, it follows the edge of downtown next to the river and then
> cuts across north of a lot of the major buildings.
>
> While putting MAX on the [bus] mall would solve some of these
> problems, it would mean some confusion with the two lines and would
> still require many people to transfer to get to their destination.
>
> My idea is to have it basically follow the proposed route but have
> both ways go above the same street, meaning that 1 station would be
> required instead of 2. Also, I would move the Pioneer Square and
> Union Station stops north 1 block.
>
> [See http://www.trimet.org/improving/images/tmallmap.gif ]
>
> Moreover, west side trains would go in/out above Jefferson St. A spur
> would drop down to 18th Street and the present Kings Hill station to
> serve PGE Park. Non-west side trains could end here.
>
> West side trains would drop down to grade level and the tunnel just
> west of 20th Ave. At the other end, the elevated portion would simply
> go on to the Steel Bridge.
>
> It seems like it would be a really good idea and provide benefits for
> all parties involved.
>
> For transit riders, it would mean much faster trips (esp. from the
> west side to the Rose Garden/Lloyd Dist.) because the right of way
> would be exclusive and because there could be fewer stops.
>
> Also, it would mean that more places could be served without needing a
> transfer. These include Union Station, City Hall, the courthouse,
> South Park Blocks, the art museum and the history center.
>
> All trains could use the same set of stations.
>
> For auto users, peds and bikers, it would mean safer and easier
> getting around because they (esp. autos) would not have to worry about
> the trains and associated restrictions.
>
> For businesses' customers, they would have a faster and better way to
> get downtown and they would not have to worry about trains in getting
> to the businesses.
>
> It would NOT look like Chicago but instead of like the bridges here.
>
> [It would, along with platform lengthing, also allow >2 car trains.
> Also, it would be a lot easier then a subway, think digging and
> utility relocation. It just means putting some piers in the ground
> and putting a track bed on them.
>
> --Jason, McHuff, Salem, OR]
In article <21f959d.0307012035.16017ae9@no-spam>,
Jason McHuff <jmchuff@no-spam> wrote:
>...
>> > I have been wondering about that myself since the trains do have to go
>> > very slow getting on/off the part that gets raised.
>>
>> InterstateMAX includes upgrades to the Steel bridge that will allow the
>> trains to go faster over the span.
>>
>I didn't know that. It doesn't seem like they've done them yet. Have they?
>...
>> > Lastly, expense-wise, could they get the Feds to pay for it as part of
>> > the mall redo? Also, the Interstate Long (now Vanport) Bridge didn't
>> > cost THAT much, which this would be like.
>> >
>> The Vanport bridge is over much cheaper land than downtown - and there would
>> be a lot more impact on Air Rights.
>
>I was thinking of having it be totally over streets.
The Vanport bridge is a much more massive structure than any of the
two-track steel elevated structures in Chicago. And if you put a
structure like that over a street, you'd need to have more massive
pillar arrangement because you couldn't use central pillars.
You might win a little bit by only having a single-track viaduct,
but not very much.
____
david parsons \bi/ And the Lovejoy ramp is a pretty good indication about
\/ how well elevateds are loved here.
In article <bdv81i$iur@no-spam>, orc@no-spam
(david parsons) wrote:
> The Vanport bridge is a much more massive structure than any of the
> two-track steel elevated structures in Chicago. And if you put a
> structure like that over a street, you'd need to have more massive
> pillar arrangement because you couldn't use central pillars.
>
> You might win a little bit by only having a single-track viaduct,
> but not very much.
Depends on how far between pillars. Take a look at the Detroit people
mover support structure for what it could be like. As I have said, that
is not a particularly huge structure.
Also, as I suggested here two months ago, the elevated structure through
downtown Oregon City carries trains that weigh as much per axle as an
entire MAX car. Because the supports are built multiple columns, like
most any railroad bridge should be, rather than with a single large
circular column, as done in highway practice, there winds up being quite a
significant amount of open space under the resulting bridge. A similar
bridge, designed with the light weight of a MAX car in mind, could be
built with even less mass to it.
--
-Glenn Laubaugh
Personal Web Site: http://users.easystreet.com/glennl
The center median of I-205 was specifically designed for LRT. AirportMAX
uses it, and the proposed line from Gateway to Clackamas Town Center will
use it. I-205 is a long way from downtown.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"David Gibbons" <davidg@no-spam> wrote in message
news:x7FMa.87038$R73.10568@no-spam
> or they could just run something along 205 and merge with some of the
other
> transit locations.. i know there was a proposal to have the max share
lines
> with some the rails to make it down to willsonvile or something along
those
> lines.. making a loop from downtown down I5 to 205 back up to gateway woud
> be nice.
>
>
> "Jason McHuff" <jmchuff@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:21f959d.0306302204.1c24801e@no-spam
> > I sent this to trimetlightrail@no-spam yesterday. [Stuff added]
> >
> > Has anyone considered elevating MAX thru downtown and changing the
> > route somewhat?
> >
> > It seems like now, it really doesn't take the most effective route.
> > After all, it follows the edge of downtown next to the river and then
> > cuts across north of a lot of the major buildings.
> >
> > While putting MAX on the [bus] mall would solve some of these
> > problems, it would mean some confusion with the two lines and would
> > still require many people to transfer to get to their destination.
> >
> > My idea is to have it basically follow the proposed route but have
> > both ways go above the same street, meaning that 1 station would be
> > required instead of 2. Also, I would move the Pioneer Square and
> > Union Station stops north 1 block.
> >
> > [See http://www.trimet.org/improving/images/tmallmap.gif ]
> >
> > Moreover, west side trains would go in/out above Jefferson St. A spur
> > would drop down to 18th Street and the present Kings Hill station to
> > serve PGE Park. Non-west side trains could end here.
> >
> > West side trains would drop down to grade level and the tunnel just
> > west of 20th Ave. At the other end, the elevated portion would simply
> > go on to the Steel Bridge.
> >
> > It seems like it would be a really good idea and provide benefits for
> > all parties involved.
> >
> > For transit riders, it would mean much faster trips (esp. from the
> > west side to the Rose Garden/Lloyd Dist.) because the right of way
> > would be exclusive and because there could be fewer stops.
> >
> > Also, it would mean that more places could be served without needing a
> > transfer. These include Union Station, City Hall, the courthouse,
> > South Park Blocks, the art museum and the history center.
> >
> > All trains could use the same set of stations.
> >
> > For auto users, peds and bikers, it would mean safer and easier
> > getting around because they (esp. autos) would not have to worry about
> > the trains and associated restrictions.
> >
> > For businesses' customers, they would have a faster and better way to
> > get downtown and they would not have to worry about trains in getting
> > to the businesses.
> >
> > It would NOT look like Chicago but instead of like the bridges here.
> >
> > [It would, along with platform lengthing, also allow >2 car trains.
> > Also, it would be a lot easier then a subway, think digging and
> > utility relocation. It just means putting some piers in the ground
> > and putting a track bed on them.
> >
> > --Jason, McHuff, Salem, OR]
>
>
"Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message news:<vg5tij8p8q985c@no-spam>...
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Jason McHuff" <jmchuff@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:21f959d.0307012035.16017ae9@no-spam
> > ...
> > > > I have been wondering about that myself since the trains do have to go
> > > > very slow getting on/off the part that gets raised.
> > >
> > > InterstateMAX includes upgrades to the Steel bridge that will allow the
> > > trains to go faster over the span.
> > >
> > I didn't know that. It doesn't seem like they've done them yet. Have
> they?
> > ...
> > > > Lastly, expense-wise, could they get the Feds to pay for it as part of
> > > > the mall redo? Also, the Interstate Long (now Vanport) Bridge didn't
> > > > cost THAT much, which this would be like.
> > > >
> > > The Vanport bridge is over much cheaper land than downtown - and there
> would
> > > be a lot more impact on Air Rights.
> >
> > I was thinking of having it be totally over streets.
> >
> You've obviously not seen the Vanport Bridge - the support columns would
> effectively block the streets.
Right, I have only seen the start of construction of it as well as
some photos. Supports would be an issue, but THAT is not a problem in
Chicago.
Maybe I need to study the bridges (including Vanport) some more...
--Jason McHuff, Salem, OR
Dateline: pdx.general, 2 Jul 2003 09:30:58 -0700.
jmchuff@no-spam (Jason McHuff) wrote:
>Overall, this can be another reason to elevate MAX. However, from
>what I'm reading here, I think having it on the ground MAY work. They
>are talking about having the bus stops spread out more and should mean
>places where only 1 lane is needed because there would be no stops.
>This is probably where the MAX will stop.
Yeah, I think they're going from 2 blocks between each bus stop to 3.
I don't know exactly how they're going to do it though, like if
they're going to move every stop or just consolidate and eliminate
some of them.
--
Aaron `Katt` O'Donnell
http://www.aaroncity.com
Dateline: pdx.general, Tue, 01 Jul 2003 21:39:36 -0400.
wrob <wrob@no-spam> wrote:
>I can't believe they would screw up the bus mall just to preserve
>a couple auto-only turn lanes, though. Priorities, people!! Just look
>at the next post, "How TriMet stacks up." Remember the vast majority
>of that excellent ridership is still buses (I'm speaking to nobody in
>particular here... the most foaming MAX zealots don't seem to care
>about the bus system. I like MAX as much as the next guy, and I'd
>be the first to say MAX on the bus mall would be cool, but only
>because of the space provided by auto-ony turn-lanes, and by extra-wide
>useless sidewalks where the turn lanes are interrupted...)
They need to keep the auto lanes, because they need people to go
downtown and buy stuff.
In the same class where I got the info from TriMet, they talked about
when MAX went in and closed off parts of SW 1st Ave to auto traffic.
When the cars stopped, business went down. They found out that alot of
people still drive downtown, despite the congestion and limited
parking and all that.
Although most of the mall has been off-limits to cars longer then 1st
Ave was, I suspect that shutting down 5th and 6th completely between
Union Station and somewhere like SW Jefferson or Columbia would still
do some damage to local businesses along the new MAX route. Leaving
the mall's lane configuration as-is might be TriMet's way of appeasing
all the downtown retailers.
--
Aaron `Katt` O'Donnell
http://www.aaroncity.com
"brasil98@no-spam" wrote:
> Also, as I suggested here two months ago, the elevated structure through
> downtown Oregon City carries trains that weigh as much per axle as an
> entire MAX car. Because the supports are built multiple columns, like
> most any railroad bridge should be, rather than with a single large
> circular column, as done in highway practice, there winds up being quite a
> significant amount of open space under the resulting bridge. A similar
> bridge, designed with the light weight of a MAX car in mind, could be
> built with even less mass to it.
Huh, I didn't know there was an elevated freight line in Oregon City...
Another reason to visit next time I'm out there.
-BER
Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell <pdxkatt@no-spam> wrote in message news:<e8d2gv42min5oqeige68hur5niji03it83@no-spam>...
> Unless you're handicapped and can't take the up/down stairs. I think
> the ADA would require each stop above/below ground to be equipped with
> an elevator, like all those stops along I-84 do. That would get
> expensive.
>
> I've never seen Chicago's elevated trains, I don't know what they do
> about this over in the windy city.
I'm trying to recall myself. Didn't pay attention to this issue when
I visited Chicago last summer. Given the age of the system, I'd have
to assume that most of the stations don't do a damn thing to
accommodate handicapped customers, and since they're grandfathered
they probably don't have to do until the CTA spends more than a
certain threshold of money on refurbishing a given station.
--
David Barts
Portland, OR
On 4 Jul 2003 09:12:53 -0700, davidb@no-spam (David Barts) wrote:
>Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell <pdxkatt@no-spam> wrote in message news:<e8d2gv42min5oqeige68hur5niji03it83@no-spam>...
>
>> Unless you're handicapped and can't take the up/down stairs. I think
>> the ADA would require each stop above/below ground to be equipped with
>> an elevator, like all those stops along I-84 do. That would get
>> expensive.
>>
>> I've never seen Chicago's elevated trains, I don't know what they do
>> about this over in the windy city.
>
>I'm trying to recall myself. Didn't pay attention to this issue when
>I visited Chicago last summer. Given the age of the system, I'd have
>to assume that most of the stations don't do a damn thing to
>accommodate handicapped customers, and since they're grandfathered
>they probably don't have to do until the CTA spends more than a
>certain threshold of money on refurbishing a given station.
I recall that MTA (Los Angeles) was similarly exempt from ADA upgrading on freeway stops
that had long, steep stairs to access from the street, because there was never going to be
significant upgrades to those stops.
Good thing, too, because three years ago MTA stopped running the express lines to those
stops, and now only a single LADOT (city) commuter bus serves those stops, with fewer than
ten stops each day at each. Can you imagine how long it would take to recover the costs
of upgrading those stops?
=================================================================================
Kymberleigh Richards
President, Southern California Transit Advocates <http://socata.lerctr.org>
Member, Metro San Fernando Valley Sector Governance Council
Associate Member, California Transit Association
Webmaster, San Fernando Valley Transit Insider <http://www.transit-insider.org>
=================================================================================
Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell <pdxkatt@no-spam> writes:
> Unless you're handicapped and can't take the up/down stairs. I think
> the ADA would require each stop above/below ground to be equipped with
> an elevator, like all those stops along I-84 do. That would get
> expensive.
>
> I've never seen Chicago's elevated trains, I don't know what they do
> about this over in the windy city.
Old stations are exempt, new stations have elevators, just like the
subway stations.
--
Jordan Bettis <http://www.hafd.org/~jordanb>
If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples then
you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and
I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have
two ideas.
-- George Bernard Shaw
Jason McHuff wrote:
> The idea was that people think elevated railway = dark streets of
> Chicago. I think that a elevated MAX would be quite narrower.
Most consider an elevated line unsightly, or an eyesore or "visual
intrusion," even though the most up-to-date elevated lines have paid
attention to reducing visual pollution.
The people on the ground tend to hate the elevated lines, even
though the users often enjoy the view from a higher vantage point.
Dave Simpson
In article <87ptkkmiv8.fsf@no-spam>, Jordan Bettis
<unpost@no-spam> wrote:
> > The people on the ground tend to hate the elevated lines, even
> > though the users often enjoy the view from a higher vantage point.
>
> Have you taken a survey? I've not found that to be the case in
> Chicago.
Significant portions of some of the outlaying lines of BART are also elevated.
All of the metropolitan monorails in Japan are elevated.
Seattle monorail is the same way, and there seems to be some considerable
interest in expanding that system.
--
-Glenn Laubaugh
Personal Web Site: http://users.easystreet.com/glennl
david_l_simpson@no-spam (Dave Simpson) writes:
> Jason McHuff wrote:
>
> > The idea was that people think elevated railway = dark streets of
> > Chicago. I think that a elevated MAX would be quite narrower.
>
> Most consider an elevated line unsightly, or an eyesore or "visual
> intrusion," even though the most up-to-date elevated lines have paid
> attention to reducing visual pollution.
>
> The people on the ground tend to hate the elevated lines, even
> though the users often enjoy the view from a higher vantage point.
Have you taken a survey? I've not found that to be the case in
Chicago.
--
Jordan Bettis <http://www.hafd.org/~jordanb>
Systems have sub-systems and sub-systems have sub- systems and so on ad
infinitum - which is why we're always starting over.
-- Alan J Perlis: Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN 1982
Jordan Bettis wrote:
> david_l_simpson@no-spam (Dave Simpson) writes:
>
>> The people on the ground tend to hate the elevated lines, even
>>though the users often enjoy the view from a higher vantage point.
>
> Have you taken a survey? I've not found that to be the case in
> Chicago.
It may no longer be the case -- and it would be moot anyway even if
Chicagoans said they hated the Loop, as it is now a National Historic
Landmark -- but for many decades Chicago officials tried to expand on
the 1939-40/1950-52 "Initial System of Subways" downtown, with the
stated goal of replacing the Loop Elevated.
One change that makes a difference is that modern pedestal-support
elevated designs usually do not block out light and air the way
structures like the Loop did.
--Sandy, who lives in the US city with the oldest pedestal-support
elevated rapid transit railway; the northernmost two miles of the
Frankford Elevated, opened in 1922, are on a pedestal structure, and
there is a noticeable difference in the light and atmosphere along
Frankford Avenue, over which this segment of the Frankford El runs,
compared with Kensington Avenue, which has a more typical for the time
outboard-columns-supported structure.
--
Sandy Smith, Exile on Market Street, Philadelphia smiths@no-spam
Managing Editor, _Penn Current_ current@no-spam
Penn Web Team Member webmaster@no-spam
I speak for myself here, not Penn http://pobox.upenn.edu/~smiths/
"Work is just like high school. Only the desks are bigger."
------------Jack Dougherty, author of "Most Likely to Succeed at Work"--