Portland Transport

Are Biking and Walking "Cool"?

Chris Smith — Fri, 17 May 2013 19:10:54 -0800

Portland State University
Spring 2013 Friday Transportation Seminar Series

Speaker: Tara Goddard, PhD Student in Urban Studies, PSU

Topic: Are Bicycling and Walking "Cool?": Adolescent Attitudes about Active Travel

The declining rates of physical activity among children, particularly adolescent girls, are well-documented, yet there has been insufficient research into the attitudes about health behaviors, particularly active travel, of the children themselves. Tara's research explores attitudes about active transportation among children aged 4-17 years and examines how perceived ability, self-efficacy, and sensitivity to certain environments or facilities vary across gender and age of the children. She utilizes data from the Family Activity Study, a multi-year longitudinal intervention study in Portland, Oregon, in which 490 children answered surveys regarding their attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors about traveling by walking, bicycling, or being in a car.

When: Friday, May, 24, 12-1 p.m.

Where: PSU Urban Center Building, SW 6th and Mill, Room 204

First Time I was Hoping to See a Fare Inspector

Chris Smith — Thu, 16 May 2013 14:26:18 -0800

So I could show off my iPhone ticket. This morning I became a beta tester for the Globe Sherpa app.

I haven't used all the bells and whistles yet, but the core functionality is pretty straightforward. I purchased four 2-hour tickets with my credit card. The app 'stores' these for me. I then 'used' one of the tickets (pictured here) for a MAX trip to North Portland.

The app can sell any kind of ticket up to a 30-day pass, for any class of rider (Adult, Youth, Honored Citizen). No Streetcar-only fares yet (but it's in the works), but of course you can use any TriMet fare on the Streetcar.

The app also has access to TransitTracker, a trip planner and maps and schedules, but I haven't explored these in depth yet.

U.S. PIRG Report Documents Decline in Driving

Chris Smith — Tue, 14 May 2013 07:47:27 -0800

The report indicates two major demographic trends: Baby Boomers are "aging out" of driving, while Millenials are adopting it at much lower rates. The report also makes policy recommendations (review large highway projects) in response to the trends.

A NYTimes article today includes coverage of the report.

Who Shall We Discriminate Against?

Chris Smith — Fri, 10 May 2013 00:57:58 -0800

In allocating parking...

The vote by City Council last month to re-institute parking minimums for larger residential buildings in transit corridors is not likely to satisfy the Richmond neighborhood (or other neighborhoods) completely. There will probably be some serious discussion of permit programs, and I think that's healthy. Managing on-street parking is far better policy than requiring construction of parking beyond what the market demands. Indeed, clear on-street policy will give the market important signals about how much parking should be built.

So what's this about discrimination? ANY permit policy has to discriminate against (disallow, limit, charge) some group of potential users, or it won't have any impact. So we're going to need to have a conversation about who we're going to try to regulate and hopefully align it with good policy.

Today, Portland has one tool in the permit toolbox, the Area Permit Parking program (APP). The plain vanilla version of this program issues permits to residents (without limit, for as many vehicles as they may own) and a portion of employees (the percentage varies by district, from about 50% to the 100% demanded by businesses in the NW Parking Plan). Visitors are limited to two hours unless a visitor pass is provided by a permit holder. So who does this discriminate against?

Visitors who need/want to stay longer than two hours
Some portion of employees (maybe)

To understand the policy rationale for this, it helps to understand that this permit program was designed for close-in neighborhoods near downtown (I believe Goose Hollow was the first neighborhood to use it). The intended policy impact is to:

Prevent parkers whose ultimate destination is a nearby district from using the neighborhood to park, walking or using transit to get to their final destination.
Encourage employees in the neighborhood to use non-auto modes to get to work (often coupled with incentives to do so)

If we're going to put some new tools in the toolbox, to deal with neighborhoods with problems other than commuters, what kinds of parking behavior to we want to disallow or disincent? Some candidates after the jump...

The default scenario - People not willing to be inconvenienced
This is effectively what happens in my NW neighborhood today in the areas not yet covered by a permit program. If you're prepared to park your car some distance from your home you can find parking. If you choose not to put up with that, you can find a home with a driveway (or get a permit to put one in) - or in another neighborhood.
Residents of multi-family buildings

This was the explicit request of some of the neighbors in the recent Planning Commission/City Council process - reserve on-street parking for single-family home residents. This could be implemented by assigning permits to street addresses (2 per address?) or perhaps on the basis of the street frontage of a property. At least one developer suggested that this would give them a clear basis to plan how much parking they would need to build. But it has some serious problems from an equity point of view, particularly as much of new multi-family construction is currently in apartments. Renters tend to be younger, lower-income and more diverse than single-family homeowners.
Newcomers

We could allocate parking based on tenure in the neighborhood. Those who've been residents the longest get access to on-street parking. As people move out, the next person on the list gets the permit. However, given that single-family homeowners tend to have longer tenures than renters, this starts to look a lot like the last case, with the same equity issues.
Newcomers (one-time)

We could apply the approach above as a "grandfathering" strategy, such that when one of the original "vested" permits is surrendered it goes back into a general pool allocated by some other system. While this still has some equity challenges, it might help deal with the political challenge of the kind of rapid change we're seeing in some corridors. Transition strategy, anyone?
People not willing to pay

On-street parking is a valuable resource, this approach puts an explicit price on it. We could figure out how many permits a given zone (neighborhood, block face?) can accommodate, and then auction them off and sell them at the clearing price. This is the ultimate market approach.

But willingness to pay pretty quickly blends into ability to pay, and for the sake of equity, we'd probably need some way to means test or apply a subsidy for some potential users.

There are simpler forms of this than an auction. A starting point would be to set a permit price above the cost of service (currently about $60/year to do the administration and fund enforcement). The premium above cost of service could be shared between the City and the neighborhood (the policy term for this is a "parking benefit district"). But let's remember that the driving policy should be neighborhood livability and vitality, revenue should remain the side effect. If that gets reversed, political opposition would likely get much stiffer.
People with multiple cars

I actually tried to apply this one in the 2003 variation of the NW Parking Plan. Households with multiple vehicles would pay on an increasing scale. The second permit costs more, the third even more, etc. How steep the curve is will of course be the subject of vigorous debate...
People with off-street parking

Should someone who does not have a driveway or garage be more entitled to a permit than someone who does? A curb cut effectively privatizes at least one parking space, so there's some rationale there. This may force some folks to clean out their garages...
People who don't use their cars (much)

I have to admit this is one of my favorites. The survey data behind the recent zoning measure had one very interesting nugget. People in the new apartment buildings have a pretty high auto ownership rate (60-70%) but a much lower rate of using them to get to work daily (~30%).

I could argue that this is actually the worst case scenario. Whatever you think of cars, they generate value only when in motion. So a car that is just parked most days is generating no mobility value, while at the same time using up a space that could be used by the customer of a local business during the day. I would welcome policies that encourage folks who use their cars only rarely to switch to any of the varieties of car sharing that we enjoy in Portland. And they'd be likely to save money in the process...

I would note that almost any of the approaches above would work better if the market in off-street parking were freer. Our residential zoning makes it illegal in most cases to rent any surplus off-street capacity in residential zones to neighbors. I certainly hope we can fix that in the Comp Plan update.

So what do you think of these approaches? Do you have others to suggest?

How Do We Get an Antifragile Transit System?

Chris Smith — Tue, 07 May 2013 10:01:57 -0800

It would appear that the failure of a single surge protector effectively disrupted most MAX trips during the morning rush hour yesterday.

That would seem to be the definition of "fragile" - a small failure has a non-linear (and much amplified) effect on the whole system. I could draw a similar analogy with a car taking out one switchbox bringing down Transit Tracker for a large part of TriMet's system a few months ago.

I recently read Nassim Taleb's book Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder. He defines systems in three major buckets:

Fragile - small failures have big consequences
Resilient - hammer the system, it bounces back
Antifragile - assaults on the system actually make the system stronger (think human immune system)

So how could we make our transit system not just resilient, but actually antifragile?

I don't pretend to know the answer to this, but I hope TriMet will give it some thought.

Before someone takes a (deserved) shot at Streetcar for opening a service with no spare vehicles (definitely fragile), I'll point out that having reserve vehicles would not make us antifragile, just resilient. How do we get to antifragile?

Powell/Division project to (officially) start in July

EngineerScotty — Tue, 07 May 2013 00:00:30 -0800

For quite some time, BRT (of various sorts) has been talked about in the TriMet system. It was considered for the original MAX line (at a time in which both BRT and LRT were virtually unheard of in the US); and it was given some serious consideration for PMLR. It remains a leading contender for the Southwest Corridor, though rail is on the table--and it has long been discussed in the abstract.

But starting this July, the Powell/Division Transit Project officially kicks off. Right now, there isn't much outreach material at the site other than the usual kick-off boilerplate, and a corridor map:

A bigger version of the map can be downloaded here.

The project, as discussed at its new Metro homepage, assiduously avoids discussing mode. But as noted in the Open Thread, the draft Capital Asset Management and Investment Program for 2014-2018 seems to tip the hand somewhat--and makes it clear that regional planners foresee this being a BRT project:

The strawman

On page 165 of the CAMIP, one finds the following item:

BRT First Corridor - Powell - Division
BRT service with new, dedicated buses implemented under Very Small Starts federal program. This will be a limited stop, all day service, with distinctive branding and customer information, providing faster service along an existing Frequent Service Bus corridor. Project includes shelters, stop improvements, new buses dedicated to the service, and targeted transit priority treatments. Corridor Study to determine alignment and treatment details begins July, 2013.

In addition, Metro planners essentially stated that they expect it to be BRT when the project was authorized last year. Despite the scepticism of some that BRT is only considered for political reasons (or to meet federal-funding requirements), I have every reason to believe that the region is serious about this. Why? Well...

TriMet, and the region generally (but especially TriMet, which is the public face of transit planning) has gotten a lot of flak (some of it deserved) for expanding rail but letting the bus system wither. Actually building BRT, rather than merely talking about doing so, might quite some of those critics.
The cities involved (Portland and Greshem) already have MAX lines serving them, and the Powell/Division corridor in runs parallel to the MAX Blue Line. The dynamic of "Beaverton got a MAX line, we want one too!!!!" simply doesn't apply.
The Blue Line also already provides higher-speed transit service in the Portland-Gresham market, so a class A or B transit solution isn't really necessary.
The corridor in question is already an established bus corridor, but one where installing light rail (or any dedicated-ROW transit) would be expensive. As both streets have high traffic volumes, mixed-traffic streetcar is probably not an appropriate choice either (Streetcar works better on streets without many cars).
Money. LRT or high-end BRT is expensive; but class C+ BRT is relatively cheap. The CAMIP contains a budgetary estimate of about $40M--a figure I expect to change (likely in the positive direction) as plans are refinded, but nonetheless a useful estimate of what resources the region is willing to deploy.

Classifications of BRT

A quick review of some terminology. A longstanding criticism of BRT is that the term is used to variously refer to different levels of service, ranging from full busways like in Curitiba or in Brisbane, to limited-stop services with a distinct paint job. A particular objection is that BRT projects are often sold (sometimes by anti-transit interests looking to block a rail project) by promising Curitiba-quality, but what is delivered is far less. To avoid such confusion and or subterfuge, I'll refer to a couple different ways of grading transit projects.

A common classification I like to use--one that works for back-of-the-envelope estimates, is the A/B/C classification described here. Briefly, class A (when applied to BRT) is a fully grade-separated busway (like Brisbane), where the bus neither has to stop at crossings nor get stuck in (auto) traffic. Class B refers to dedicated lanes, but with cross traffic (B+ might be a dedicates surface busway like the LA Orange line, B might be a median-running busway, and B- a so-called "business access/transit" lane), and class C refers to ordinary mixed-traffic operation. Class C+, generally the minimum level of operation for a service to be "rapid", involves mostly mixed-traffic operation, but with some level of signal priority and/or queue jump lanes.

Another more robust classification is the Institute for Transit Development and Policy's BRT Standard, which evaluates BRT systems on many criteria (not just right-of-way). Bronze BRT is nothing to sneeze at (Eugene's EmX was recently rated as bronze). And of course, other criteria such as fare collection and boarding methods, stop spacing, and vehicle choice will affect performance as much as characteristics of the right of way.

What Powell/Division might look like

As noted above, it appears that Powell/Division will be a "class C+" BRT, at least for the crucial stretch between the east end of the Ross Island bridge out to I-205. (The service will likely use the new PMLR transit bridge, which will be open and operational by the time the project is completed, and thus have exclusive transit lanes from OMSI all the way up the transit mall). As noted, the budget is in the tens of millions of dollars, as opposed to hundreds of millions or even billions, and there is simply no room on Powell Boulevard to widen the right of way, not without knocking down many of the buildings that make Powell such an excellent transit corridor (and existing neighborhood) in the first place. The budge simply won't allow for either significant ROW acquisition or major new structures, and given that Powell is a state highway (and an important one), it's probably safe to assume that converting auto lanes to bus through lanes is out of the question.

That doesn't mean that performance can't be improved.

Right now, the 9-Powell takes between 40 minutes and an hour, according to schedule to travel from Powell/Milwaukie to Gresham TC, a distance of 11.7 miles (and about 70 stops, or about 270m between stops). (The 4-Division/Fessenden takes similar time to cover a similar distance). According to Google, driving the route of the 9 takes 26 minutes, assuming normal traffic. Were a BRT along Powell to have an average stopping distance of, say, 450m (0.28 miles), that would correspond to 42 stops. That alone won't necessarily improve things by itself--few runs of the 9 ever stop at every single stop along the way, but a more limited-stop service is likely to service every stop; and with local service, individual stops will take longer. But reducing the number of stops can make other optimizations possible.

A bigger lever to pull with BRT is reducing dwell time. It can take forever to board a high-floor bus, especially if the ramps need to be used. Low-floor busses are a bit better, but there is still the bottleneck that boarding passengers need to file past the driver and present fare. By contrast, precision-platform bus systems with articulated-buses, all-door boarding (and wide doors), and off-board fare collection (whether secure-platform or proof of payment) can achieve dwell times of 20 seconds or better, even with lots of passengers getting on and off. Doing this has a dramatic impact on end-to-end travel times, but obviously requires that stations be actual "stations", rather than just poles in the ground, and a shelter and bench if you are lucky.

And while it's likely that a fully-segregated busway is out of the question--if the bus can bypass some of the worst bottlenecks in the route, this can have a significant impact on performance. Where are the worst bottlenecks? Powell/Milwaukie. Powell/39th. Powell/50th/52nd/Foster. Powell/82nd, particularly. 92nd and the ramps at I-205. 122nd. 181st/182nd. Essentially, the major cross streets, where the light will be red more often than it is green. It is in these places that signal priority and/or queue jump lanes can pay a big benefit.

A few interesting links for those interested in comparing BRT performance: This study, and PT article. The study is (of course) far more scholarly and thorough, but is rather heavyweight reading.

What about the route?

A couple other interesting questions: What route will the BRT take? It's generally assumed that the BRT will run on Powell between downtown and 82nd, jump to Division using either 82nd, 92nd, or the I-205 ramps, and the run on Division out to Gresham. An argument can be made for shifting over to Division at or about 62nd, (or even 52nd) to better serve Franklin High and/or Warner Pacific College, and avoid the nasty and crowded 82nd/Powell intersection. A second question is--terminate at Gresham TC, or extend the BRT to Mount Hood Medical Center and Mount Hood Community College? The corridor planning area includes both of these.

How will this affect the 4 and 9? Right now, these two routes run the length of Powell and Division, and are parallel corridors. But a BRT line that is half-Powell and half-Division might upset that apple cart. Would a single local bus line serve the other halves of these streets? Would the BRT overlay the 4 and the 9 (which might operate at reduced frequencies), with the latter proving local-stop service for those who may have trouble covering longer distances to BRT platforms that are spaced more widely.

Oregon Passenger Rail Project meetings this week

EngineerScotty — Sun, 05 May 2013 23:43:37 -0800

The Oregon Department of Transportation is running an initiative known as the Oregon Passenger Rail Project, seeking to improve intercity rail in the Willamette Valley. There will be two meetings in the Portland area this week for those interested:

May 7:

SE Metro Community Advisory Group Meeting
6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
Pioneer Center Ballroom
615 5th St,
Oregon City, OR 97045

May 8:

Portland Community Advisory Group Meeting
6:00 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.
Billy Webb Elks Lodge
6 North Tillamook Street
Portland, OR 97227

Meeting materials are available at the above link.

Oregon Iron Works Responds

Chris Smith — Fri, 03 May 2013 08:25:29 -0800

With an op-ed from their chairman.

KBOO Bike Show: Moms on Bikes

Chris Smith — Thu, 02 May 2013 23:50:01 -0800

Listen to the show (mp3, 25.1MB)

In honor of Mother's Day, Steph and Michelle are joined by Katie Proctor of Kidical Mass, Kelly Hansen of the Community Cycling Center and Steph's mom, Donna Routh.

Your Questions for Neil, "Round 4", Part 4 - Potpourri

Bob Richardson — Thu, 02 May 2013 12:47:09 -0800

This is the final installment of our interview last with with Neil McFarlane, TriMet's General Manager, based on your suggested questions.

Today, "Potpourri", a variety of topics including late-night/early-morning service, bus stop improvements, new apartments without parking and frequent service planning, and the issue of interlining and color designation for the new "Orange" line.

Navigation:
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

Your Questions for Neil, "Round 4", Part 3 - Vehicles

Bob Richardson — Wed, 01 May 2013 14:20:52 -0800

Here is the 3rd video in our 4-part series of last week's interview of TriMet's General Manager, Neil McFarlane. As with the previous segments, this too features your suggested questions.

Today, we address the broad topic of "Vehicles", not just fuel types and propulsion, or articulated and double-decker, but also planning for Bus Rapid Transit corridors.

Navigation:
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

May 2013 Open Thread

EngineerScotty — Wed, 01 May 2013 00:00:01 -0800

Welcome to the merry month of May. Lots of stuff going on right now, here's just a sampling:

We direct your attention to the fourth year of our interview series with Neil McFarlane. A total of four parts will be published: (Part 1, Part 2 are now available, Part 3 and Part 4 forthcoming).
We also direct your attention to Zef Wagner's piece on the Lombard Re-Imagined effort; a project to tame what is one of North Portland's most important streets (and one that is still, unfortunately, officially designated as a truck bypass...)
Labor relations between TriMet and the ATU are once again, not off to a good start, as a "ground rules" meeting last Friday ended abruptly, partly over which media entities might be entitled to cover the negotiations. ATU's take here, TriMet hasn't published a press release on the subject yet.
ODOT is considering variable speed limit signs for area freeways.
Things are getting hot and heavy with the Columbia River Crossing, as Mayor Hales threatens to nix the project if the Washington Legislature doesn't approve funding. Hales, Oregon governor Kitzhaber, and Washington governor Jay Inslee are all on record stating that light rail is a "non-negotiable" component of the project; with the Republicans in the Washington State Senate insisting that the project be built without it. Two years ago, we compared the project's complicated politics to squaring the circle; we'll see if this game of legislative chicken gets resolved in the next month or so, or not.
TriMet would have you read APTA's periodic Transit Savings Report, as well as wanting you to know that proximity to public transportation significantly improves a home's value.
Metro is revising the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) again, and wants your input.

Semi-Truck / Streetcar Collision

Bob Richardson — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 17:51:05 -0800

The afternoon of Tuesday, April 30, 2013, a semi-truck collided with a Portland streetcar at the intersection of SE Market St. & SE MLK Blvd.

I happened to be nearby and captured the process of separating and removing the two vehicles. The truck had a flat tire and bent wheel (in addition to major body damage) but was able to move a short distance under its own power before being towed. The streetcar, which had been knocked off of the tracks by about a foot, was lifted back onto the rails by crane, and then towed back to the maintenance facility using a 2nd streetcar.

According to others at the scene, there were no injuries.

UPDATE 5/1/2013:

The following operations update was sent to members of the Streetcar Citizens Advisory Committee:

From March 27 to April 27, 2013 we experienced a 100% rate of operating all scheduled vehicles. On April 30 a CL Line streetcar was hit by a semi-truck turning left off of SE Market onto SE MLK Jr. Blvd. The accident blocked all of MLK from just before 2pm to approximately 4:30pm. The Streetcar was put back on the rails and towed back to the maintenance facility. We are estimating that Car 002 will return to revenue service around June 1, 2013. The CL Line will be down one train Monday-Friday until Car 021 enters into service. Car 021 (the first production vehicle from United Streetcar) is now expected to enter revenue service May 14, 2013

Lombard Re-Imagined Open House on Tuesday, May 7th

zefwagner — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:59:06 -0800

For the last several months, I have been working with five other PSU Master of Urban and Regional Planning students (collectively known as Swift Planning Group) on an exciting project called Lombard Re-Imagined. We have been working with the Kenton Neighborhood Association and other surrounding neighborhoods to re-imagine the unpleasant, unsafe, auto-oriented stretch of Lombard Street from N Chautauqua Blvd to NE Martin Luther King Jr Blvd. Our focus is on finding strategies and projects the neighborhood can advocate for that will result in a safer transportation system, a more pleasant walking environment, and neighborhood-friendly business development.

This corridor has a lot going for it (proximity to Kenton's nice main street, a direct connection to St John's, excellent transit service), but unfortunately the area has not received much attention or investment in the past and has become a barrier between neighborhoods. As an Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) facility (US 30 Bypass) and a designated over-dimensional freight route, many have feared that change is impossible, but as we have seen elsewhere (for example, just up the road in the St Johns area) ODOT is often willing to make needed changes to make streets safer and better. We have been working with both ODOT and the Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) to understand what is possible to make the street work better for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and motorists. We are especially focused on improving the pedestrian environment, since that is what the street is most lacking right now.

After a great round of public outreach with the community over the last few months, we have a pretty good idea of the concerns and ideas people have for the area. We have also done a great deal of research and analysis and have developed a preliminary set of recommended strategies. In some cases, we are still looking at several alternative ways of tackling a problem. Now we want the public to see our ideas and weigh in, and the best way to do that is to attend our Open House on Tuesday, May 7th from 5:30pm to 8:00pm at the Kenton Masonic Lodge (8130 N Denver Ave) (For those who use Facebook, please RSVP at our event page). We will have posters showing off our ideas for the street and we will be asking you to give us your feedback, ideas, and advice for how to make Lombard a better place. This is an open house, so you can just show up anytime to check out our posters and talk with us about what you think. I hope that any readers who care about making our busy arterials more livable and multi-modal (always a big topic on this blog) will consider attending our open house and following our project moving forward.

For more information or to contact us:
Website: www.lombardreimagined.com
Facebook: www.facebook.com/LombardReImagined
Twitter: @LombardRImagine
Email: lombardreimagined@gmail.com

Your Questions for Neil, "Round 4", Part 2 - The Suburbs

Bob Richardson — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:07:27 -0800

This is the 2nd in a series of four videos of our interview last week with TriMet General Manager Neil McFarlane, featuring many of your suggested questions.

Today's topic is "The Suburbs", looking at service levels, political support, future planning, and transit equity.

Navigation:
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

Transcript after the jump:

Chris Smith: So lets shift to the second major topic, which I'm calling the suburbs

Neil McFarlane: OK

CS: So, not withstanding the existing contracts between TriMet and Clackamas County, at least the political environment for PMLR in Clackamas County has gotten somewhat hostile in recent months or recent years. What's the impact of opening service to a district that doesn't appear to be particularly enthusiastic about having you come to them, and what's that going to mean in the short term and the long term do you think?

NM: Well first of all, I would tell you that really, just about every light rail line we've ever opened has had opposition. And what has happened over time is communities have embraced them in a very big way. I would also tell you that within the environs of PMLR, there is a lot of support for the project and a lot of embedded support. We have a very dedicated for example, citizens advisory committee, we have a number of champions, primarily from the Oak Grove area and Clackamas County, but also from Milwaukie. Now, no doubt there's controversy associated, that has been stirred up, but one of the things we have to demonstrate is what a great alternative it is, and how important it is for the residents of Clackamas County to be connected to the jobs engines, for example, OHSU and the South Waterfront, to the educational opportunities at OMSI, to Portland STate University, to the jobs inventory downtown and elsewhere through the light rail system. So I think that, plus the speed of that alignment, will be very efficient alignment and make a very efficient trip for the residents of the county, I think we'll win the day with the residents or with the riders. I think long term we have to continue to build relationships, there's no question, and one of the things I think is an opportunity to do that, will be our, and you probably will want to talk further about this, is our Service Enhancemnt Plans that are underway with around the region. And our service planning for the Portland-Milwaukie opening will embed in it, will be embedded in the Service Enhancement Plan we do for the Clackamas County area. So that's an opportunity to talk more broadly about transit service in Clackamas County.

CS: So thats actually the next question. A dynamic we've seen in the last few years with the economic and budget challenges is that long-planned rail projects are opened, the Green Line, Eastside Streetcar, that utilize service hours, at the same time, service hours are being cut on busses. Not a popular place to be. Are we going to see something similar with the opening of Portland-Milwuakie, or all the service hours incremental, and what will happen to the bus system at the same time when Portland-Miwaukie opens?

NM: Well there will be some reallocations of service. For example, the 33 doesn't need to run all the way to downtown Portland with Portland-Milwaukie. So some of that savings will go back into the operation of light rail lines, but there is an increment that is new going to light rail, and that is part of the last increment of the payroll tax expansion, which, as you remember Chris, was dedicated to new services. And one of the new services is the PMLR project. By the way, the last increment of that payroll tax is included in our budget for FY14 starting in January '14, that's the last of the increment of the .7% range that was authorized in 2004.

CS: So shifting to another part of the suburbs, were in planning of the SW Corridor. I don't hear a lot of optimism about actually being able to fund construction for a number of years yet. Why are we spending resources now to do planning for something that we can't really see the horizon when we can fund the construction?

NM: Well, I think that's a great question, but if you think about any of our major light rail projects, they've been 10-15 year endeavors. They are not flash-in-the-pan proposals. I think the most.. other than the airport, which was a public-private partnership, using the federal process, the fastest that we saw was probably the Interstate MAX light rail, and that was really a portion of the South-North light rail project, so even that one, when you think about the work that we've done prior to kicking the Interstate MAX project, probably ten years. So, one of the responsibilities I think of Metro, and we're their partner in that regard, is to not think about just tomorrow, but think about what the future's going to bring. And part of that, I think, the interesting thing about the SW corridor is that it is bringing land use planning up front and close to us first. And so, they're starting with what is the land use vision that the communities in the corridor, whether it be portions of SW Portland or Tigard or others, what's that vision, and how do you begin to form a transportation/transit system that begins to service that vision the right way. A little bit different than what we've done before, and I think a little visionary, and good, but I think it underscores the long term nature of these plans.

CS: And I appreciate that. I've a had wearing my planning commissioner hat to work on the Barbur Concept Plan, work with the stakeholders committee, the mayor, to get a vision for what Barbur Boulevard wants to be when it grows up. But just to look at the timeline I think maybe some of us would expect if we, they're undoubtedly long processes, but we look at the gap between milestones, from Locally Preferred Alternative to a Full Funding Grant Agreement, is it likely that this one will be longer than most, or do you think it will be in the same?

NM: No, I think it will be longer than most. And I would say I think that's the right thing, and gets to the exact point that you are making. Which is I think this is the time and this the space, to really build our bus system, to build the best bus system we've got. That's going to be my priority moving ahead. Now, the corridor projects are great support for that, you know the underlying network is our bus system, and we've got to do a good job with that. That's why I've emphasized bus replacement for example in our budget moving ahead. We're trying to accelerate the bus replacements so we have, we're essentially caught up from the lean years of the great recession when we didn't replace any busses, and we'll actually be caught up by 2016. So, again, every penny of our service improvement dollars we can scrape together for the next budget, fiscal 14, that's going to bus service, and that will be my priority moving forward.

CS: So while we're on the west side. The financial performance, or I'd say the required subsidy for WES, is still a pretty staggering number. I know ridership is increasing gradually, is there a point at which we have to take a hard look and say, we should just be putting those public benefit dollars into more productive forms of transit, in that corridor or elsewhere?

NM: Well, there may be, but I don't that think we're at that point. We're seeing, every year that WES has been open, ridership continues to grow. And recall that we opened in the leanest employment years, much leaner than we anticipated in terms of outlook forecast that justified the project. So I know for example, there's currently a call center that is located out at our Millikan light rail stop on the west side, that call center is moving down to the former Hollywood Video site in Wilsonville, so frankly we get an incredible amount of riders in that employment zone. So it's those kinds of system changes that will really affect ridership on WES. The other thing to recognize about WES that it's really a fixed cost. Every rider we have will reduce the overall average cost per ride, and we still have room, so we want to continue to lure more riders to WES. I think it's still fair to say it's not a completely proven concept, but it is, I think, providing an important service. I spent some down at the Oregon Legislature, and it's interesting to know how many of the staffers, and even members, are using WES to get to Wilsonville to get to...

CS: (SMART) 2X to Salem...

NM: ...to get to a bus to Salem. And I think it's beginning to demonstrate its utility in that regard.

CS: In general, as we're continuing to evolve the system and the frequent service line system seems to be relatively fixed at the moment, we're trying to get service back but we're not adding new lines. What's the state of equity between service in the center of the region vs the suburbs? Are there changes we should look for there, or are things relatively stable?

NM: Well, Just a couple things about that, is that one of the things I really really want to do is get our frequent service intervals restored. And so I'm going to be spending a great deal of time scraping up the pennies over the next year to see where and how we can do that. A lot of that of course depends on labor negotiations, but even independent of that I want to begin this effort of getting that service restored because I think it's really important. Second of all, your question I think is an excellent one, and that's why I mentioned earlier the Service Enhancement Plans that we're underway with. And we're essentially at the cleanup stage of the Service Enhancement Plan for the westside area. And I'd encourage any of our listeners to go to our website and look at that plan. But what it begins to do is create a network of bus service that begins to, frankly, look a lot like the network of bus service we have on the near-in east side of Portland, from 82nd in. So in other words, it provides multiple, the ability to serve destinations within Washington County and multiple connections as the grid on the east side also allows. So that's, I think, a great vision that has been really embraced by many of our stakeholders on the west side. But it also begins to tell us how much demand there is for transit. Everywhere we go, everywhere, every community I go to, people want more transit. Now that's a terrific thing, and I wish I had the dollars in my pocket just to put out more service. But I think it does indicate that there is strong potential in the future for some good partnerships. You know, first, for me is, we've got to demonstrate to our taxpayers and our fare-payers that we've got our financial house in order. Then, I think, we can begin to look for the parnerships to begin to grow service. I can give you another example. Our next sector that we're looking at in terms of our service enhancement planning would be the Southwest Corridor, sort of parallel planning effort we talked about earlier. I was down at the Tualatin Chamber recently, and I was talking to a number of the businesspeople there, and they are offering on the market jobs that are good entry-level jobs, you know, $15-$20/hour jobs, and they're having a heck of a time getting people to apply for them because of the lack of transit alternatives to the Tualatin industrial area. And I hear this message throughout the region, so what I know is we've got a great product that is truly important to the region, and that really need to expand the service. Yes we need to restore frequent service to those lines who have it now, yes indeed we do have some gaps in the frequent service network side. I'm a fan of turning the 35 and the 44 and a few others into frequent service before we get too far along. But we've got these great sectors of employment, new employment opportunities in our suburban areas, we need to connect people to, and do a better job of that.

CS: Well I'll put in a plug that, the planning commission I serve on has been spending a lot of time looking at East Portland, and needs out there, and having a north-south frequent service line in East Portland would go a long way to the need of that community.