The ideal streetcar placement is curbside contra-flow. Yes; take a lane and REALLY dedicate it to the cars. Turners can always see the car coming; there's no "Oh. I didn't know it was back there!" rationalization. If one delays the car one just might end up with it in the engine compartment.

THIS article goes into that.

Even thought its not about Portland specifically, it applies to Portland.

~~~>Neil Mcfarlane has already broken a legally binding contract-to his employees of all thing.

Don' talk about contracts and Trimet to me.

The hypocracy is mind-boggling.

Upset enough to make spurious (although rather unsupported) suggestions that Portland gang-bangers are riding MAX into CTC and cause trouble. (The sheriff's department notes a general rise in crime in the area of the mall since 2009; but doesn't provide any evidence whatsoever tying this to light rail).

The good sheriff has beaten this drum before.

Unfortunately, Sheriff Roberts doesn't make similar objections to the various road and highway projects on the county's to-do list--even though scofflaws can just as easily use improved streets to travel to crime scenes, his department is charged with traffic enforcement on county roads (more of which increase the workload of his deputies), and these things also cost the County money that could instead be funding the sheriff's department.

But Sheriff Roberts wants you to know that he's "not against transit".

In Eugene and Everett, they each designed a bike rack just behind the articulated joint of the bus so that riders - passengers with bikes board through the rear door and park their bike in a slotted rail style rack (http://youtu.be/tmCYi383d_w), (http://youtu.be/T0Vj19CB6LI - skip to 2:00 for bicycle info).

Seems as though a BRT implementation would allow TriMet to get in on some additional federal funds for bus stop improvements and vehicles along its frequent service corridors. It's hard to understand why they haven't looked at this as an alternative to their "debt service" option for bus purchases.

I don't know which "demographics of LA" you are referring to, but it's worth mentioning that the Red and Purple line subways, which apparently have a fare evasion problem, primarily serve west LA and Hollywood--i.e. the wealthy white parts of town.

I still think MAX to Tigard is inevitable, even if they can't say that outright. Both Portland and Washington County will push hard for it, not to mention Tigard itself. Clackamas Co, having just received the two newest lines, will have minimal ability to object.

Excavating stations is.

This is why the tunnel would necessarily include only a few stations that service major trip generators. Assume each station will cost in the neighborhood of $100 million. Maybe Hillsdale and perhaps PCC would be a bit cheaper; they both could get by with the more minimalist design of Washington Park, since all they need is a basic surface plaza with a transit center around it. Maybe more elevators at each end; maybe wider platforms.

The OHSU/VA station has so many issues on the surface that it almost certainly would cost significantly more. If the station were to serve both OHSU and VA effectively, it would probably need to be between the two institutions. Bear in mind the bridge between them is 660 feet long -- you can't just put elevator banks at each end of a 200 foot long station and serve both hospitals. (There might also be a need for substantially more elevators than Washington Park and significantly wider platforms.)

Potentially, you might create a longer underground station, with the elevator banks about 500 feet apart, each one rising into to a tower in the canyon between the hospitals -- but that means spending a lot of money on the towers, as well as the bridges to connect each tower into its respective building.

Or, the station could serve OHSU and let people walk the skybridge to the VA hospital. That could turn into a four-block walk from OHSU to the VA, which is not always the easiest thing for a patient. Depending on projected VA traffic, there may be the potential of pedestrian congestion on the sky bridge.

Anyway, I would go into this assuming that the cost of an OHSU/VA station would be eye-popping. On the spending end, the state (through OHSU) and the federal government (through the VA) should pick up at least part of the capital cost. Both institutions have massive parking problems that a MAX station would go a long way to solving.

I really don't see much highway improvement out of this project, but maybe the plan simply exists to take the extra load coming down from the CRC when it arrives

A 40' (13m) bus can hold about 80 at crush load. A 67' (20m) articulated bus or Streetcar can hold about 130, and a 100' (30m) LRT vehicle can hold about 200. A 2-car MAX train has a crushload capacity of about 400 persons, and I've heard of 500 being crammed into a train before.

There is no street-legal, single-decker bus that can hold as many people as a single MAX car can. Dual-decker busses and multi-level trains obviously increase the capacity per linear foot, but they tend to be really slow to board, and not appropriate for rapid transit applications (they work better for local service and best for point-to-point service).

The proposed surface street improvements sure look nice, however.

Except BRT vehicles can't be lashed together train-style.

While I'm leaning toward LRT for the SW Corridor, I think BRT, or a variation thereof, would work great on the following:

* I-205 (between Clackamas and Tualatin)
* 82nd Ave (Green Line is just fine where it was built but 82nd still needs transit enhancements)
* 122nd Ave
* Powell Blvd
* Beaverton-Hillsdale Hwy
* Columbia Blvd (between Parkrose and St Johns)

There are so many delays on LRT that I am surprised that this argument even comes up. And one thing on one train holds up EVERYTHING!.

Trimet screwed up its light rail by going right on the street and having so many stops in downtown.

Light rail is supposed to be FAST which means it has its own segregated right of way where car's can't access.

The argument that you need less operators to operate light rail is also false.

BRT vehicles are capable of holding as many passengers as LRT. Of course Trimet getting rid of all its articulated buses increased its own operating expenses by needing more operators.

I think the Trimet blue line is a example of a somewhat successful light rail line, subject to the limitations that I mentioned above.

I could envision a line to Vancouver as being worth the investment. But to be truly successful as a light rail line it would have to have its own right of way and have significantly less stops on its way to Vancouver.

As gas prices rise the demand for transit will increase. Thinking needs to change from the ridiculously expensive inflexible light rail to the cheaper BRT.

The Milwaukie line is a ridiculously overpriced insane project. Hopefully we will never see that type of extravagance in this area again. How can anybody support it given its cost?

Eventually I am going to head down to Trimet offices with a hand full of requests for public information and get some access to some of these contracts. I wanna see how these grants have been parted out. We (the public) know nothing about the building of this. We know its going to cost $1.5 BILLION!

I really want to see exactly how that money is being spent and to whom, from the top to the bottom.

From what I hear there are many ex trimet managers this getting money as part as one of the dozens of sub contractors.

There is something rotten over there and somebody needs to dig into it.

I'm sure I will have to appeal to the attorney general to get a waiver of the absurdly high fees that Trimet imposes to access this material

The I-5 Broadway/Weidler Interchange plan has more or less come up with its proposal. I'm not pumped about spending money to widen urban freeways, especially at a cost of $400 Million for about 2 lane-miles. I haven't seen this covered at all here yet but perhaps we're due?

I may have mis-quoted Jarrett, or simplified his concerns.

However: from my point of view - there are always going to be winners and losers as far as where development goes. We would do well as a region to have the winners be transit accessible and losers be car-dependent. For example- building out a huge jobs complex in north Hillsboro (just added to the UGB) might make sense if we were providing more transit service to that route. However if we're just going to put transit in after the fact then we're missing an opportunity. Transit routes should be connected to the development they are intended to serve. If we're going to spend 1-2 Billion on the SW corridor, I would hope that we can attract significant private investment around station areas, otherwise why are we bothering? The same applies to the existing systems. Its important to get the most bang for our transportation $. Especially in the current funding climate

I don't know regarding the planning implications of a WES conversion. I would assume it is doable, as the process right now is very preliminary, rather than at a DEIS/NEPA level. Those areas (Beaverton and Wilsonville) *would* have to be in the DEIS level document to be considered.

Most of WES is in the corridor, so that helps that theory. I've heard the idea tossed around by Metro staffers at public meetings, but I don't know how serious they are or how far they are leaning in that direction.

As for Jarrett's comments on locations and serving the SW Corridor, I think that's really really short sighted if that is indeed his perspective:

• Transforming communities is an essential value of how we approach land use and urban growth in the Portland metro area, so using transit to urbanize areas is a central philosophical aspect of transit here.
• While geography and land use will always constrain service levels, there are equity issues. The Southwest Corridor is becoming significantly less white and less upper middle class. The idea of underserving this population because all they can afford is suburbia is a dangerous one. Everyone who needs transit access does not have the means to move to where it is good.
• We've already created a pattern of metropolitan-style rapid transit construction in the city. Not building a rapid transit line (regardless of mode choice) into the last metropolitan region without it would essentially be slating the SW Corridor as a place where business, employment, and residential development would be discouraged. It would place the SW Corridor at a significant competitive disadvantage against areas of the region that already have rapid transit.

Overall, though, I'm with Doug K on this one: every time the bus vs. rail trope gets raised (though, I'm not accusing you or even OPAL of this in this case) everyone seems to forget entirely about operating costs.

(WES itself should have taught us all to watch out for this: it was cheap to build, and REALLY expensive to operate.)

Large vehicles operating under electric propulsion are far cheaper to operate. I don't think we would be wise to invest in what we presently think of as BRT, even if the design side were done properly rather than halfway like Eugene did with the first EMX line. Seriously, people, you don't have on street plus center running median plus side running and mixed traffic transitions. It's a recipe for delays and no better than a regular bus.

Better ideas would be to steal a few things from the BRT playbook and enhance what we used to know as Frequent Service corridors. (Remember those?) For example:

• Every major west coast operation uses flexible articulated buses to add capacity. Why don't we? There's a cost savings right there as we get more riders / capacity per driver.
• Improve more stops with shelters and lighting.
• Move FS routes to electric operation, as we once had, and as SF, Seattle, and Vancouver all still have.
• Brand FS routes differently than the rest of the bus system and differentiate them with paint and signage.

I think a program of "enhanced bus" would find support both in Portland and in the suburbs, so long as a few key routes into the suburbs were included. (54/56 seem logical, as does the remainder of service on McLoughlin beyond the Orange Line.)

Trolleybusses use a different wiring scheme than does electric rail. Both the Streetcar and MAX use the same power system; but a trolleybus would need it's own system, if nothing else, a two-wire system to provide a path for return current. It's possible to mix the two systems on the same corridor, but not easy to do. (I'm mainly concerned about the transit mall, which has wiring for MAX down the length; and given that MAX travels down the center lane for those blocks where it doesn't stop and the right lane where it does, the two systems would have to cross each other numerous times).

Excavating stations is.

The Washington Park station is a good example of a very minimalist station--basically the two rail tunnels are a bit wider for 200', and connected in several spots. I'm assuming that any stations under the West Hills would be of similar design; the massive caverns found in many East Coast subways would be avoided. But still, underground stations cost lots of money.

Drilling technology has improved over the last 15-20 years, since we drilled the Robertson tunnels, and I think an estimate of 100M per mile is pretty accurate. Add the cost of the stations and the vehicles, electrification, etc. and it will likely be less than the Milwaukie MAX. The reason MLR was so expensive was because of the outrageous cost of ROW through Central Eastside, SE Portland, and along the UP tracks. Plus the new bridge. We largely avoided those costs with the other 5 MAX lines.

LRT costs more up front, but the ability to have an operator run a train of LRT vehicles, plus the lifespan of the vehicles themselves, saves money on operations over the long term. In terms of capacity, it's the equivalent of one operator per four buses ... a good deal as long at the LRT line runs reasonably full much of the time. Since (AFAIK) the federal government won't help pay for operating costs, it's probably better to get their help building the system that will cost less, over the long run, to operate.

I also question the $2 billion estimate for a MAX line to Tigard. Maybe that would be the case for a surface line. However, if the "long tunnel" option (OHSU, Hillsdale, PCC) were used, the tunnel would need to be about six miles long -- twice the length of the Robertson Tunnel. Per Wikipedia, the Robertson tunnel cost $184 million in 1996. Double that to reflect the greater length, and roughly double it again for inflation, and it's around $735 million or so. Add a couple of additional underground stations at $120 million each (from memory, $38 million, but I tripled it because the PSU and OHSU stations would be larger and more elaborate), and you can get from downtown nearly to Tigard for under $1 billion.

I can see PSU to Tigard TC costing a bit over a billion. Two billion just sounds absurdly high, given the actual cost of the tunnel and underground station that Tri-Met already built.

Can you imagine the entire length of our principal routes? Imagine how well North Portland could be served with BRT service on Lombard, Killingsworth, and MLK. West Portland would be well-served by a route on the Beaverton-Hillsdale and Tualatin Valley highways all the way out to Hillsboro. East Portland, though with abundant service, doesn't exactly enjoy *fast* service. I think it's time to rectify that. Imagine something rapid on Sandy, Burnside, Belmont, Hawthorne, Division, or Powell. A brilliant cross-town idea would include BRTs along the entire length of the 72 and 75 buses. It could even help in Downtown with good signal priority. It would wonderful to finally have fast cross-town service west to east.

Service levels could be every ten minutes during the day, every day, and ever fifteen minutes after 9 PM. With stops about every half-mile, signal priority, and pre-boarding fare collection, the trips would be not only be faster than they are now but easier to make. Connections would also be easy for once since waits would be so small. I'm not counting on priority lanes for most of the routes, but the other upgrades would certainly speed things up. As a bus rider, I wouldn't complain at all. Furthermore, these routes would be fixed lines like MAX and on a map, separately branded, and highly visible.

I don't know if two billions dollars would cover all of those projects, but it could probably cover a couple of them quite well. It would be like the Rapid buses in LA. If they can't reduce trip times by a third there, imagine what it could do here. I would welcome it, I would vote for it, and I would be happy to see such an investment cover so much of Portland proper instead of the suburbs.

Oh, and if there's any funds left over, let's use them to expand the general bus network. I'm sure a lot of people would love to see more north-south routes on the East Side, especially inner Portland between 12th and 39th avenues. Restoring the high-frequency network and even expanding it would be good, too. I can think of several lines that need additional runs.

Oh, the things we could do with two billion dollars directed just for buses! Dreamy...

But these days are different, and it would not be PC anymore to say that those who need public transit due to equity can't think of what to do with the rest of their time. So, why can't we schedule routing more from a profit perspective, thus reducing the public subsidization? And when there is less subsidization of one service, there is money for an alternative. So, that is why I often raise the idea of express buses that make a few stops....and then ignore everyone in between. There would still be service for the in-between areas, resembling the present scheduling.

If a bus got people to their destination as quickly as a rail, would people be attracted to it? Last time, I was to the airport I realized that the MAX gave people with luggage plenty of room. But most daily commuting routes probably don't have that requirement.

What would we get? Let's watch Everett, WA and see what the ROI is for their express, double tall system. It did make use of existing SWIFT facilities. OTOH, they funded it with 90 percent grant money. I've been waiting for them to put out a financial report.

I think regarding the politicians decisions it would depend upon how vocal the advocates are. My cynical opinion of governments is that they ultimately want more taxpayers. Does this lead to an endless spiral? :)

But it just may have become to expensive to construct any more new LRT, and reality has to be faced, no matter how painful to the railheads.

Of course, the bus manufacturers could play their part by designing and building more attractive comfortable vehicles in order to attract more folks who just won't ride on a bus.

Improving reliability is mainly dependent on the nature of the right-of-way (do vehicles have to stop at crossings? can they be stuck behind traffic?) and the stops and stations (how often does the vehicle have to stop? How much time does it take to service a stop?); both of which are mostly independent of the bus/rail question.

OTOH, some of the auxiliary goals may have bigger mode choice dependency, due to the cultural preferences of some (potential) riders--if there is a significant segment of the population that will ride the train but not the bus, and developers are less likely to build next to a bus line, these are things that need to be considered.

But they are auxiliary considerations: For the primary purpose of transit--making it possible for people to get around without needing to bring a vehicle along (particularly a car); they're irrelevant.

BTW--did you catch Jarrett's talk last week? :)

My $0.02 plus tax: Improving trip times and and reliability should be the combined main purpose, as it would then help fulfill many of the other goals mentioned. A more timely/reliable transit system would attract more riders, which would reduce VMT and emissions as more people leave their cars at home, the areas near the line would be more attractive to developers, etc.

To clarify a point: The proposal described above is not my recommendation for a new line; it's a thought experiment of how a Portland-Sherwood (or Portland-to-the-Tualatin-River) rapid transit line would look, with a budget of less than $500M. The corridor in question is over twice as long (around 17 miles) as Portland-Milwaukie, if one builds all the way out to Sherwood. For $500M you won't be able to afford significant ROW acquisitions or major new structures, and you probably wouldn't be able to afford to rebuild the roadbed on Barbur to LRT standards. The proposal above is possibly doable at that price though--but that's a back-of-the-envelope calculation.

Some observations from the feedback:

* OHSU connectivity is extremely important (I agree).
* Some disagreement as to what the main purpose of the line ought to be--improving trip times? Improving reliability? Attracting ridership? Improving land use outcomes? Attracting development? Reducing VMT, emissions, etc? These questions need to be decided, obviously, and the current public process is working on precisely that.

A question for Alexander--given that much of the WES corridor is outside of the study area, could a decision to build LRT down the 217/I-5 corridor arise from the current planning process? Or would it spawn a new planning process, being out of scope of the current process?

http://apc.io/

Paired with a monitor, this would make a great transit appliance.

To get high-capacity service, OHSU/VA would need an underground MAX station with multiple high-speed elevators (the best option) or a BRT station on Barbur linked by a high-capacity people-mover of some kind -- possibly a funicular railway.

I don't really buy the acrophobia thing. For every person that refuses to ride it I think there are a handful that get on only for the novelty and awesome view. You experience forces much higher in magnitude on busses in busy traffic all the time compared to the little swing thing it does mid-way.

Regarding ES comment, there is a difference, IMO, between the regular commuter type of cyclist who is knowledgeable about safety and the person whose only resort is to get around by bike. Living right on the Springwater Trail link I see quite a few of these, latter, riding without lights and usually no head protection. I have been almost run down sometimes crossing the street and I figure they would probably speed off, too. In this corridor there are people who roller skate, jog and skateboard right down the middle of the street because it is part of the trail.