[ProTram]

On September 9th, a massive report was released documenting a variety of ideas regarding the master plan of the streetcar network in the coming years. There is an impressive amount of lines that are being proposed, on various levels of priority. All costs and resulting effects of each line are explored in great detail, from potential ridership to neighborhood impact.

You can go here to download and view the impressive 100 page document in its entirety.

http://www.portlandonline.com/Transportation/index.cfm?c=46134

Here is a glimpse into the document:


Green- 1st level corridor, Orange- 2nd level corridor, Red- 3rd level corridor
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2531/3969572320_d08e97bfe0.jpg

1st level corridor line designations
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2516/3969602974_a3cbd3b461.jpg

Concept Corridors and Comprehensive Corridors
System with Loop, Lake Oswego and Concept Corridors= 31.7 Miles
Total System with Comprehensive Corridors= 72.8 Miles
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3435/3968851855_85863875fc.jpg


CONCEPT PLAN INDIVIDUAL ROUTE BREAKDOWN
(All cost projections are in 2009 dollars)

NW 23rd TO HOLLYWOOD (2.0 miles new track construction)
Cost: $60-70 Million (includes 6 new vehicles)
2035 Ridership Projections: 6,600/day
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2559/3968874615_5a2bd4d0a8.jpg

KILLINGSWORTH TO RIVERPLACE (3.3 miles new track construction)
Cost: $60-70 Million (includes 6 new vehicles)
2035 Ridership Projections: 3,200/day
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2456/3969667466_16c2a42d0a.jpg

THURMAN TO HOLLYWOOD TC (4.7 miles new track construction)
Cost:
NW 18/19th - $30-40 Million (includes 2 new vehicles)
Burnside/Couch - $90-100 Million (includes 6 new vehicles)
Sandy - $65-75 Million (includes 4 new vehicles)
2035 Ridership Projections: 10,000/day
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2449/3969693164_b676dc2888.jpg

LAKE OSWEGO CORRIDOR TO TACOMA ST MAX STATION (1.5 miles new track construction)
Cost: $60-70 Million (includes 2 new vehicles)
2035 Ridership Projections: 1,700/day
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3511/3969722020_d827f9f5b5.jpg

GOOSE HOLLOW MAX STATION TO 50TH (4.7 miles new track construction)
Cost: $170 to 190 million (includes 10 new vehicles)
2035 Ridership Projections: N/A
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2542/3969737418_141164ee02.jpg

GATEWAY TC TO MAIN/99TH (1.9 miles new track construction)
Cost: $60-70 Million (includes 4 vehicles)
2035 Ridership Projections: 1,000/day
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2584/3968979149_9d218a1dab.jpg


This is just a small glimpse into this document. There is great detail looking into every conceptual route and every possible impact. I think these ridership projections are extremely underestimated (when looking ahead to 2035), especially when you see how the starter line exploded way above their expectations in ridership.

[urbanlife]

The city should be starting a new streetcar line the moment they finish constructing one. I cant wait to see the Central Eastside line up and running.

[RED_PDXer]

Will be interesting to see how this system will be paid for and what happens to the successful buslines already operating on most of these streets.

What's also confusing is the assumption that a streetcar vehicle can hold 140 people or almost three times the load of a standard TriMet bus (about 50 passengers). The manufacturer's website provides an estimate of 140 persons based on a density of 5 persons per square meter (about 2 square feet per person). One might also note that this theoretical capacity of a 60' long streetcar vehicle is mysteriously greater than the stated capacity of TriMet's MAX vehicles based on over 20 years of ridership data. MAX cars are about 90' long and can hold about 130 persons per vehicle.

Is streetcar a solution to a problem? If so, what's the problem statement that guided this plan and what alternatives were considered? Instead of a clear alternatives analysis, the plan attempts to defend a solution that was handed down by the City at the very beginning of the process (and not by TriMet, our transit provider). This seems to be a major flaw.. Trolley bus, enhanced bus service, dedicated transit lanes, transit signal pre-emption, etc could have been considered as less expensive ways to solve a problem (whatever it is..).

My problem with our current bus network in the inner city is it's too slow, too crowded and not as frequent or comprehensive in coverage as it should be. Streetcars will be slower, just as crowded (especially if they think 140 people can fit in one), less frequent, and likely result is less money for improved transit coverage.

[zilfondel]

hmm, some odd routings. I'd rather see a Burnside/Couch -> Sandy and a Hawthorne streetcar line. Belmont just doesn't make sense to me... Hawthorne has a much higher density, and a more direct route. Its 6 blocks from Belmont to Hawthorne, and almost no retail along the route, particularly after 39th.

[urbanlife]

hmm, some odd routings. I'd rather see a Burnside/Couch -> Sandy and a Hawthorne streetcar line. Belmont just doesn't make sense to me... Hawthorne has a much higher density, and a more direct route. Its 6 blocks from Belmont to Hawthorne, and almost no retail along the route, particularly after 39th.

many of the lines they are studying are because they use to be rail lines at one time. You are right that Hawthorne makes more sense over Belmont, but Belmont use to have a streetcar line, so why not study it.


Will be interesting to see how this system will be paid for and what happens to the successful buslines already operating on most of these streets.

What's also confusing is the assumption that a streetcar vehicle can hold 140 people or almost three times the load of a standard TriMet bus (about 50 passengers). The manufacturer's website provides an estimate of 140 persons based on a density of 5 persons per square meter (about 2 square feet per person). One might also note that this theoretical capacity of a 60' long streetcar vehicle is mysteriously greater than the stated capacity of TriMet's MAX vehicles based on over 20 years of ridership data. MAX cars are about 90' long and can hold about 130 persons per vehicle.

Is streetcar a solution to a problem? If so, what's the problem statement that guided this plan and what alternatives were considered? Instead of a clear alternatives analysis, the plan attempts to defend a solution that was handed down by the City at the very beginning of the process (and not by TriMet, our transit provider). This seems to be a major flaw.. Trolley bus, enhanced bus service, dedicated transit lanes, transit signal pre-emption, etc could have been considered as less expensive ways to solve a problem (whatever it is..).

My problem with our current bus network in the inner city is it's too slow, too crowded and not as frequent or comprehensive in coverage as it should be. Streetcars will be slower, just as crowded (especially if they think 140 people can fit in one), less frequent, and likely result is less money for improved transit coverage.

We get it, nothing anyone says or does will convince you that streetcars are a good idea, you are a pro-bus person....I am starting to think running in this circle is kind of a waste of time.

[ProTram]

Some people just can't be won over. I for one am very interested in a lot of these lines. There are a few that I think have no purpose, but the route along Sandy looks especially interesting, among others.

One thing that is undeniable is streetcars CAN carry more people, maybe not 3 times as many, but still more than an equal amount compared to buses. And they are cool! I hands down choose to ride the streetcar over the bus if I get the choice. I think it is important that the city doesn't over do it though. They need to choose wisely. I feel that they shouldn't put too many new lines downtown or over too many bridges. They don't want to clog up the whole downtown network.

[MR. Cosmopolitan]

Wow! this is just massive, if portland builds all this it would have a streetcar system nearly as big as brussels's, can Portland really afford all this?
Because even if Brussels has +- the same population as portland it has nearly 5 times its density, so I seriously doubt it, but americans are richer than Belgians so that may compensate a bit, who knows.

[NJD]

^
Most European cities with 'streetcar' networks are old networks that took at least 50 years to build out (and sometimes 150 years), so comparing them is kind of hard. After the two World Wars, most of Europe chose to rebuild their trolley/tram/streetcar networks (unlike the US where GM ripped them out for bus service) with surface alignments that were intended to be all underground eventually (this idea is especially true throughout German cities where the city centers are underground and the outer areas are surface). Money became big issues for these rebuilding nations, and most of the lines remain surface today, which , some European planners deem a 'happy mistake,' while others are still pushing to have subsurface routes and surface routes for better mobility. This is an 'apples and oranges' conversation due to the cultural and sociological differences.

Oh, and Red Pdxer, the goal for a Streetcar Network in my opinion, is more of a sense of identity, space, place, values, sociology and environment rather than ridership and speed. Portland is a laid back town that likes to ride bikes and hear the 'swoosh' of the trains while sipping espresso or a pint of beer... 'We' like being different. Our culture is quickly becoming Nationally identifiable. Ask anyone who as never visited PDX about Portland and they'll give you a pretty decent description, generalized for sure, but a decent description none the less. The mobility aspect of streetcars is that of what Portlander's have decided they like and what they will support.

[MR. Cosmopolitan]

European cities had also to resist the influence of oil on transport, but they fighted it instead of considering it a national religion like the US did.

Portland as well as for the rest of the US made such a big effort in making an oil thirsty kind of transit and from such an early stage in its development, that it has been nearly impossible to really return it to its origins. After more than 35 years of intensive effort by urban planners.

I don't think it would ever be possible to make an efficient streetcar system in Portland because it simply dosen't have the density for it, and it probably never will. If you don't believe me, please do this simple experiment, go outside the downton core and Lloyd allong this proposed lines and count how many peple you cross on the sidewalk and how many 10+ storey buildings you see in your way.

[urbanlife]

European cities had also to resist the influence of oil on transport, but they fighted it instead of considering it a national religion like the US did.

Portland as well as for the rest of the US made such a big effort in making an oil thirsty kind of transit and from such an early stage in its development, that it has been nearly impossible to really return it to its origins. After more than 35 years of intensive effort by urban planners.

I don't think it would ever be possible to make an efficient streetcar system in Portland because it simply dosen't have the density for it, and it probably never will. If you don't believe me, please do this simple experiment, go outside the downton core and Lloyd allong this proposed lines and count how many peple you cross on the sidewalk and how many 10+ storey buildings you see in your way.

No, Portland doesnt have that kind of density, but at the same time with our UGB we should not wait for the city to be that dense either. There are moves the city should be doing now and in the near future if it is expecting to continue to grow, providing new rail lines and targeting the areas throughout the city that should get this kind of density is important and a must for this city to move forward in a positive direction.

Also, an unseen benefit to rail comes with tourism...whenever I travel to another city, if I am taking public transportation in the city, I am taking the train, not the bus. Urban train systems have a fascination to them that buses do not have. Stops on a train have more importance than they do on a bus. In Chicago the train stop at Armitage would have nothing significant to it if it were one of the many stops on a bus, but because it is a stop where three different trains stop, it becomes a point where people in that neighborhood converge. This is a chemistry that cannot be matched by a bus.

[eric cantona]

i think it's interesting to note that some of the routes (and their projected ridership) are based on desired development patterns. which is to say that while Hawthorne at present makes more sense than, say Belmont, planning efforts may be pointing to more density in ten-twenty years along Belmont that Hawthorne. not sure if this is true or not, but it could explain the reasoning.

[MR. Cosmopolitan]

Did Portland ever tried to change the zoning code in the inner suburbs (whole not just transit corridors) to allow row houses? That would really make streetcar effective, in fact that is the best density for a streetcar, that’s why there are still a lot in Belgium and the Netherlands.

If they've never tried it I think it would be an excellent idea to try it, because clearly suburban Portlanders don't like towers growing up close to their homes. But if they try change the zoning code and it’s rejected, then I would suggest forgetting about the streetcar and concentrating on densifying (really a lot) the areas that have already some density like Hollywood, Gresham, Hillsboro, etc... Where the home owners won't protest too much against the mounting densities. Sort of making Portland a more polynuclearized city rather than the centralized and corridor city that it’s expected to be with the present urban planning.

[ProTram]

In referring to other portions of this document, they seem to have a strong idea of how they wish the density of these corridors to evolve and how that will effect the surrounding neighborhoods. After watching the last several years of MAX and Streetcar effects on the residential density of its immediate surroundings, I don't see their hopes as being improbable. If it plays out this way I think it could make for a beautiful and well planned out system while creating an extremely positive effect on the areas involved.

Their 'Step Down' method for determining residential and mixed use impact.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3475/3973094888_91d6ce8d59.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2427/3972304591_0a65236fe3.jpg

[metroXpress]

^ cool! I've never seen something like that. Portland's streetcar and MAX is certainly a huge success!

[RED_PDXer]

Did Portland ever tried to change the zoning code in the inner suburbs (whole not just transit corridors) to allow row houses? That would really make streetcar effective, in fact that is the best density for a streetcar, that’s why there are still a lot in Belgium and the Netherlands.

The inner eastside neighborhoods don't really have much potential for redevelopment outside of the transit streets themselves. There's a few vacant lots here and there, but the commercial streets are basically it. The residential development is filled in with lots of large, beautiful historic homes/duplexes/triplexes, etc.. The density doesn't need to increase that much to fill up a streetcar service. They barely hold about 90 people while a bus holds about 55 - the buses are packed on Hawthorne and come every 5 minutes during peak periods.

Generally speaking, it's a shift in mode share that's mostly needed/expected to make these investments successful - closer to what was happening when streetcars were operating in this corridor a long time ago.

[RED_PDXer]

Oh, and Red Pdxer, the goal for a Streetcar Network in my opinion, is more of a sense of identity, space, place, values, sociology and environment rather than ridership and speed. Portland is a laid back town that likes to ride bikes and hear the 'swoosh' of the trains while sipping espresso or a pint of beer... 'We' like being different. Our culture is quickly becoming Nationally identifiable. Ask anyone who as never visited PDX about Portland and they'll give you a pretty decent description, generalized for sure, but a decent description none the less. The mobility aspect of streetcars is that of what Portlander's have decided they like and what they will support.

Interesting thought.. so we ride our bikes and listen to the streetcar. The mobility of the streetcar will be severely limited when they are stuck in traffic. I'm not against rail transit in general, but I expect some travel time savings out of it. To spend $200 million to sit in traffic in a vehicle that bicycle riders like to listen while sipping their espresso or microbeer hardly seems worth it. Sounds romantic, but a poor investment decision.

The capacity of a streetcar is just about identical to an articulated bus. It's interesting to note that most exhaustive transit systems around the country aren't pursuing streetcars as their primary transportation mode in corridors. They've opted to get more out of their limited dollars by studying articulated buses on bus-only lanes. SF, Chicago, New York, and even Los Angeles have implemented, or are about to implement, transit only bus lanes into the central city to save travel time and operating costs, and improve mobility.

If Portland wants to dedicate a travel lane to streetcar, I'd be in favor of it, but just sticking it in mixed traffic seems like a ridiculous waste - might as well skip on tearing up the road and just install catenary wire and purchase trolley buses (if oil consumption is a concern)..

I ride transit daily. I don't even own a car. Replacing buslines part way with streetcars doesn't improve my ability to ride transit. In fact, the high cost of these systems will likely mean fewer transit dollars to spend on the rest of the system, so my mobility declines as a result of this wonderful investment. I suppose a lot of people on the inner eastside never leave their neighborhood and maybe that would be fine for them to give them a nice streetcar to listen to, but the rest of us got places to go and only transit to go by..

[PacificNW]

↑↑ Some of us would rather hop on a "Streetcar" rather than a bus--or our car--- regardless if we are not saving a lot of time getting 2 our destination. Streetcars are not designed to be rapid transit.

[pdxf]

Replacing buslines part way with streetcars doesn't improve my ability to ride transit....In fact, the high cost of these systems will likely mean fewer transit dollars to spend on the rest of the system, so my mobility declines
Could this be because you don't live in an area that was developed for density and streetcars? Again, it seems to me at least, that the entire concept of streetcars is to encourage high density development, which makes it easier to get people around. Once you have higher densities as a result of streetcar development, you will be able to increase mobility to a higher level than buses could sustain (because the bus system doesn't create the densities that streetcars can create). In the long term view, streetcars will create higher mobility. You're probably right though, that in the short term while densities are still increasing, your mobility may go down. To me though, I'll generally go for a long term solution over a short term fix.

Sounds romantic, but a poor investment decision.
I'm not convinced that the image that streetcars create for Portland is a poor investment. Portland attracts a very large number of those within the creative class, which is in part due to Portland's development of things like the streetcar and the overall philosophy of the city. In addition, I'm sure a certain amount of tourism is generated by all of those New York Times articles and various city rankings of Portland as one of the best cities in the US, which is also due in part to our culture (which includes streetcars, mobility,and our nice neighborhoods which are a result of our planning practices). I think there could actually be a very large return on investment if we take the big picture into view. It may be one of those things that is hard to quantify, but that doesn't mean that it should be dismissed.

[Okstate]

One of the only things that separates Portland IS its ability to do things differently. People would not be flocking here if that component were gone. I have no complaints about the city so I am in favor of it staying its current course....which is working outstandingly if you look at stats.

[urbanlife]

I grew up in a city that felt the car was the only way to travel, and if you were too poor to own a car, then you needed to work more to afford whatever kind of car you could afford.

I moved to Portland because of its options to transportation...bus is only one alternative, basically a large car...to me rail feels different, it carries a stronger weight and dedication from the city.

Any city can install new bus lines, but rail is a permanent investment that a city has to be willing to commit to to make it happen...those routes do not change and that kind of investment helps areas grow because of the permanent investment the city was willing to make that did not involve expanding roads or highways, but rather expanded neighborhood livability.

[jaxg8r1]

^ Good point. And although I'm sure its been said mulitiples of times, but rail is soooo much easier to figure out. Granted, with some time beforehand I can usually figure out the bus routes. But the fixed station of rail is easy to figure out "on the fly" and with little expertise.

An example of this: When I first moved to Portland in 2005 I would take the #4 up to Emanuel Hospital (where I worked). Because I was only "basically" aware of the route (even with studying online...the maps don't list every stop) I had to guess which stop was the closest (and being new in town, I barely knew). So I would get off the bus and walk to work and realize that I could've gotten off closer. (Which is what I obviously did after that). But the larger point is that I didn't use the bus system as much as I could've because it was frustrating not knowing where the stops were in relation to where I was going (especially when I was travling to parts of town I didn't frequent)

And even to this day, I would rather walk almost half a mile to the nearest MAX station (Yellow Line) than take a bus thats 2 blocks from my house. (Which I often do)

[bvpcvm]

Here are two other seemingly silly advantages of rail, which, however, I think contribute to rail's ability to attract more people.

1. No potholes to go over.
2. When you get on the bus, you're on stage. Every rider watches you fumble with your ticket or money and then you turn to face them all and walk back through the bus. I know, so what? But how many of us love to get up in front of 50 or 100 people? With the train, only the 5-10 people standing near the door watch you get on and you don't have to fumble with anything.

[Okstate]

That last one really is a good point. ^

[rsbear]

One of the only things that separates Portland IS its ability to do things differently.

Sorry to be disagreeable, but there are many things that separate Portland (from other cities, I assume you were thinking) but I do agree that doing things differently is one of them.

[Okstate]

I would like to hear what you had in mind. We might not disagree on as much as you might think.

[RED_PDXer]

Here are two other seemingly silly advantages of rail, which, however, I think contribute to rail's ability to attract more people.

1. No potholes to go over.
2. When you get on the bus, you're on stage. Every rider watches you fumble with your ticket or money and then you turn to face them all and walk back through the bus. I know, so what? But how many of us love to get up in front of 50 or 100 people? With the train, only the 5-10 people standing near the door watch you get on and you don't have to fumble with anything.

There are bus systems commonly referred to as BRT (Bus rapid transit) that already address those two problems with local bus service you mention. I suppose most people on here haven't tried the EmX in Eugene where the buses run in exclusive right-of-way, aren't subject to traffic, experience signal priority when crossing arterials, allow people to purchase tickets ahead of time on the platform and have multiple doors and large-capacity articulated buses. Essentially, they perform exactly like rail, but cost only about 1/5th as much.

[RED_PDXer]

^ Good point. And although I'm sure its been said mulitiples of times, but rail is soooo much easier to figure out. Granted, with some time beforehand I can usually figure out the bus routes. But the fixed station of rail is easy to figure out "on the fly" and with little expertise.

An example of this: When I first moved to Portland in 2005 I would take the #4 up to Emanuel Hospital (where I worked). Because I was only "basically" aware of the route (even with studying online...the maps don't list every stop) I had to guess which stop was the closest (and being new in town, I barely knew). So I would get off the bus and walk to work and realize that I could've gotten off closer. (Which is what I obviously did after that). But the larger point is that I didn't use the bus system as much as I could've because it was frustrating not knowing where the stops were in relation to where I was going (especially when I was travling to parts of town I didn't frequent)

And even to this day, I would rather walk almost half a mile to the nearest MAX station (Yellow Line) than take a bus thats 2 blocks from my house. (Which I often do)

The simplicity and speed of rail is exactly what we should be doing with our bus system. Spacing out stops further and designating bus-only lanes in more places (just like Interstate MAX took away one lane of traffic in each direction on Interstate) is inexpensive and a great way to set the stage for more costly, higher capacity transit when the density eventually develops.

As an aside.. For those that don't think density develops around bus lines, look no further than Belmont, Division, Hawthorne, and Mississippi. In fact, there are commonly lower parking ratios in developments along these bus routes than in the Pearl district.

[RED_PDXer]

Could this be because you don't live in an area that was developed for density and streetcars? Again, it seems to me at least, that the entire concept of streetcars is to encourage high density development, which makes it easier to get people around. Once you have higher densities as a result of streetcar development, you will be able to increase mobility to a higher level than buses could sustain (because the bus system doesn't create the densities that streetcars can create). In the long term view, streetcars will create higher mobility. You're probably right though, that in the short term while densities are still increasing, your mobility may go down. To me though, I'll generally go for a long term solution over a short term fix.


I'm not convinced that the image that streetcars create for Portland is a poor investment. Portland attracts a very large number of those within the creative class, which is in part due to Portland's development of things like the streetcar and the overall philosophy of the city. In addition, I'm sure a certain amount of tourism is generated by all of those New York Times articles and various city rankings of Portland as one of the best cities in the US, which is also due in part to our culture (which includes streetcars, mobility,and our nice neighborhoods which are a result of our planning practices). I think there could actually be a very large return on investment if we take the big picture into view. It may be one of those things that is hard to quantify, but that doesn't mean that it should be dismissed.

I live one block from a street that historically carried streetcars (since the turn of the 20th century) so it had the density to support streetcars over 100 years ago. We have light rail now, so it's probably higher density than most neighborhoods. However, sometimes I need to travel more than a couple miles.

The streetcar averages about 5-6mph, about 1/3 the average speed of a bicycle. What is the opportunity cost of 3 miles of streetcar? Probably 100 miles of high-quality bicycle infrastructure for the same price.. cycle-tracks, bike-signals, safer signalized crossings of arterials, wider or buffered bike lanes, etc.. We'd also also see many more people taking advantage of it than the incremental gain in riders a streetcar would gain over a bus.

Portland is quickly become a mecca for bicyclists and at far less cost to build all the bicycle infrastructure in this city than one rail project - the Interstate MAX. The IMAX now has about 7,000 more daily riders than the Line 5 it replaced, but cost $350,000,000. That's $50,000 per rider.

If we planned a better transportation system that included improved bus system development and planning, more bike facilities, and selective rail investments (where they make good sense), and prioritized our investments to gain riders, we'd have a far more successful system and even more attractive to tourists, economic development, and the like.

As someone who studies and works in this field, I can tell you that this city started resting on its laurels about 10 years ago and has forgotten was transportation innovation is. The PBOT planners only know one formula for "success" and try to duplicate it everywhere without recognizing context or cost constraints. The Metro planners are afraid to make waves and spend more time talking than doing anything.. I still have hope that we'll develop a transportation system that is affordable and works (without taking 100 years)..

[urbanlife]

The simplicity and speed of rail is exactly what we should be doing with our bus system. Spacing out stops further and designating bus-only lanes in more places (just like Interstate MAX took away one lane of traffic in each direction on Interstate) is inexpensive and a great way to set the stage for more costly, higher capacity transit when the density eventually develops.

As an aside.. For those that don't think density develops around bus lines, look no further than Belmont, Division, Hawthorne, and Mississippi. In fact, there are commonly lower parking ratios in developments along these bus routes than in the Pearl district.

Actually the urban density of those neighborhoods are thanks to the first generations of streetcars, without them, those neighborhoods would not look the way they currently looks.

Red, you are right though, the city should be looking at all forms of transportation ideas from rail to bus to bike to foot to car...it is important for a city to consider all options and to understand what works best for each situation...if Portland wishes to become a better city than it currently is, the future of the city is not in one of those options, but rather a combination of all of them.

It is clear there is a love for urban rail, it is one of those elements that we think of when we think of urban cities...one cannot think of new york and not think of the subways. People that visit Portland are more interested in getting to places by train, not bus...I have been working in this hotel industry for a long time and I have been asked a ton of times on how to get to the Pearl District by the streetcar, which I then inform them that the Pearl District is a four block walk away....in a downtown this intimate, it is always going to be easy to walk anywhere.

Also you idea on the speed of the streetcar is based of the current speed that our current line travels at and not on the capabilities of the train itself. That is like saying we cant have high speed rail because the current passenger trains dont go above 60mph. When the city constructs streetcar lines out to the inner city neighborhoods, I dont see them putting a stop every two blocks. Like light rail, I think the city has learned its lesson from having too many stops too close together, thus 5th and 6th has far less stops than the original light rail line.

But with all this said, should the city just do this and not look at other options like BRT? No, that should be as much of an option as the streetcar and light rail is. I would love to see the city cap the 405 and bury I-5 through the Central Eastside, but the cost to that, I would much rather see that money go to our alternative transportation infrastructure...and with that, I dont want to see that money wasted on glorified projects that results in things like the Tram....but when it comes to rail projects, it is hard to overlook the luster that we have for them and the permanent marks they leave in neighborhoods. (by this, I mean the current density that we have in our neighborhoods that was caused by early rail.)

[jaxg8r1]

Seperately, I think Trimet should have some sort of Database that people in the community can add our travel plans to. So for instance I could add my work schedule and where I live, what time I need to be there, etc. If tens of thousands of people did this, I wonder if we could change the bus routes/times to better serve the timing/destinations of where people are going.

I get frustrated because when I leave downtown midmorning, it often takes 45 minutes to get to St. Vincent Hospital (where I work). Its about 3 miles away. So I end up driving because I can be there in 10 minutes (on a bad day) when I would love to just hop on a bus or whatever. But the infrequency and bad timing cause all sorts of problems for me. (BTW, the #20 service times and timing accuracy are not good).

[65MAX]

^^^^
Why aren't you taking MAX to Sunset? There's a shuttle from there to St Vincent's.

[jaxg8r1]

^^^^
Why aren't you taking MAX to Sunset? There's a shuttle from there to St Vincent's.

Because the Providence Shuttles also run on a weird schedule during mid-morning (ie non peek) times. Its frustrating ....

I've taken MAX to Sunset and walked before, but that takes 35ish minutes and depending on the weather can either make you wet from rain, or wet from sweat.

[65MAX]

Really? That's crazy. You would think with the amount of people that go to St Vincent's, the shuttle would be continuous all day.

[jaxg8r1]

Really? That's crazy. You would think with the amount of people that go to St Vincent's, the shuttle would be continuous all day.

Its usually every 10-15 mins, but during the middle parts of the day it goes every 20-30 mins. Its very convenient if I had a normal work schedule...but thats not the case for me.

[Okstate]

Isn't sunset station across the street from that hospital. I live right by the station & am wondering if i am missing something.

[philopdx]

Nah, you aren't missing anything, it's just that walking really is that slow. I live not very far from Sunset, but the walk up the hill is 15-20 minutes. It adds up, and when you add the newly-reduced train schedule in the mix, going 2-3 miles does take 45 min.

So let's say I wanted to work out at 24 hour fitness at beaverton central. If I time everything PERFECTLY, the walk + the train ride is 25-30 minutes, one way. Since I very rarely caught the train perfectly, you can add 10 minutes to that, up to 30 minutes if you just missed the train.

Round trip then, you're looking at close to an hour and a half commuting in an evening, just to go to the gym. I found that untenable, so I actually ended buying a car again because of it, after going without for a year and a half. I finally rejected the notion that a college-educated, well-paid professional has to trudge 90 minutes through the cold and rain every night just to bench press or squat. :irked:

[urbanlife]

Nah, you aren't missing anything, it's just that walking really is that slow. I live not very far from Sunset, but the walk up the hill is 15-20 minutes. It adds up, and when you add the newly-reduced train schedule in the mix, going 2-3 miles does take 45 min.

So let's say I wanted to work out at 24 hour fitness at beaverton central. If I time everything PERFECTLY, the walk + the train ride is 25-30 minutes, one way. Since I very rarely caught the train perfectly, you can add 10 minutes to that, up to 30 minutes if you just missed the train.

Round trip then, you're looking at close to an hour and a half commuting in an evening, just to go to the gym. I found that untenable, so I actually ended buying a car again because of it, after going without for a year and a half. I finally rejected the notion that a college-educated, well-paid professional has to trudge 90 minutes through the cold and rain every night just to bench press or squat. :irked:

And that is why the suburbs are built for the car. What is an easy task to do by foot or transit in an urban area is a complicated and slow process in suburban areas.

[ProTram]

While being a fan of at least the primary arterial routes proposed for this grand streetcar plan, I am a little hesitant on their idea to run rails over so many bridges into town. I feel that is going to have a negative effect to put lines over almost every single bridge into downtown. What do you think?

[JordanL]

And that is why the suburbs are built for the car. What is an easy task to do by foot or transit in an urban area is a complicated and slow process in suburban areas.

Not that there isn't truth in your statement, but your supposition implies the immediate location of any needed facility, and your workplace.

You're looking at trying to keep 80-90% of trips within 5-10 blocks if you are trying to make something not "built for the car". There is nothing wrong with building for the car... cars are fantastic transportation devices. Cars might have problems with the way they opperate, but that can always be changes (and really should be).

I don't own a car, but I flatly reject the notion that it's realistic to not "build for the car". Not just with current politics, but with current technology there's no realistic way to not build for the car without reducing quality of life.

I absolutely hate that it takes me 90 minutes, sometimes one way, to get places I need to go... and most of them are social places. Meeting friends, or going to a bar, or doing karaoke, or something similar. Unless all the people I knew also lived within 5-10 blocks of me, there's no way around that option, and pretending there is really sells cars short.

Getting rid of cars is stupid and pigheaded. It's a reactionary thought with no consideration for consequences or realities.

There are plenty of things that I simply don't do, that I would love to, because I don't have a car. That's not transit's fault for not being better, but it's also not the car's fault for being an excellent personal mode of transport.

[urbanlife]

Not that there isn't truth in your statement, but your supposition implies the immediate location of any needed facility, and your workplace.

You're looking at trying to keep 80-90% of trips within 5-10 blocks if you are trying to make something not "built for the car". There is nothing wrong with building for the car... cars are fantastic transportation devices. Cars might have problems with the way they opperate, but that can always be changes (and really should be).

I don't own a car, but I flatly reject the notion that it's realistic to not "build for the car". Not just with current politics, but with current technology there's no realistic way to not build for the car without reducing quality of life.

I absolutely hate that it takes me 90 minutes, sometimes one way, to get places I need to go... and most of them are social places. Meeting friends, or going to a bar, or doing karaoke, or something similar. Unless all the people I knew also lived within 5-10 blocks of me, there's no way around that option, and pretending there is really sells cars short.

Getting rid of cars is stupid and pigheaded. It's a reactionary thought with no consideration for consequences or realities.

There are plenty of things that I simply don't do, that I would love to, because I don't have a car. That's not transit's fault for not being better, but it's also not the car's fault for being an excellent personal mode of transport.

Oh I wasnt saying we shouldnt build for the car, actually I think it makes sense in every region to have it planned for all forms of transportation, including the car. My parents love living in the suburbs and I can understand why...anything they want is a short drive away from where they live and they are away from the bustle of the city.

But at the same time, if my dad chose to walk to the grocery store, it would probably be at least a half hour walk.

I am a strong believer that even in the suburbs we can have good planning that make individual neighborhoods walkable and efficient while making the suburbs easy to commute by car as well...it would make sense to build 2-4 neighborhoods and have the retail and service needs of those group of neighborhoods to be in walking distance. This in turn creates a repeat of businesses that only cater to their individual neighborhoods, but I dont see that as being a bad thing either.

But that is just one way that suburban neighborhoods can be properly planned, but complaining about it taking too long to walk anywhere makes no sense when it is obvious that suburbs are built for the car and not walking.

Not trying to start anything, just making an observation on the situation.

[Okstate]

Nah, you aren't missing anything, it's just that walking really is that slow. I live not very far from Sunset, but the walk up the hill is 15-20 minutes. It adds up, and when you add the newly-reduced train schedule in the mix, going 2-3 miles does take 45 min.

So let's say I wanted to work out at 24 hour fitness at beaverton central. If I time everything PERFECTLY, the walk + the train ride is 25-30 minutes, one way. Since I very rarely caught the train perfectly, you can add 10 minutes to that, up to 30 minutes if you just missed the train.

We probably live a stones throw from one another. You could always go to Ballys. It's a five minute walk. You are right though, walking + train takes a long time regardless of how far the train goes. My commute is walking + Max + streetcar= Yuck.

[RED_PDXer]

Seperately, I think Trimet should have some sort of Database that people in the community can add our travel plans to. So for instance I could add my work schedule and where I live, what time I need to be there, etc. If tens of thousands of people did this, I wonder if we could change the bus routes/times to better serve the timing/destinations of where people are going.

I get frustrated because when I leave downtown midmorning, it often takes 45 minutes to get to St. Vincent Hospital (where I work). Its about 3 miles away. So I end up driving because I can be there in 10 minutes (on a bad day) when I would love to just hop on a bus or whatever. But the infrequency and bad timing cause all sorts of problems for me. (BTW, the #20 service times and timing accuracy are not good).

John, TriMet conducts rider surveys every so often that capture trip purpose, origin, destination, and transfer sequences, among other things (as a federal requirement).. In fact, the region is getting updating household travel surveying work next year (last time was 1994) (also a federal requirement). The data collection and analysis continue to improve, but TriMet is a rail building organization, not one that uses this information to improve the transit system. This will change some day.. ;-)

[RED_PDXer]

A book was published earlier this year that gets to the differing viewpoints on streetcar. The author is a proponent of more transit like the Portland Streetcar, suggesting that the slow speeds and urban design are the best way to attract ridership and compete with the automobile, which (he assumes) that transit can never compete on a travel time basis (I happen to disagree with that assumption).

The Streetcar epitomizes the "Disneyland Theory" of transit that proposes that most transit these days lacks the allure and urban design qualities of Disneyland horse-drawn carriages and double decker buses. There's a review of this book and a subtle rebuttal from an actual transit planner on the following link. http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/the-disneyland-theory-of-transit.html

[jaxg8r1]

John, TriMet conducts rider surveys every so often that capture trip purpose, origin, destination, and transfer sequences, among other things (as a federal requirement).. In fact, the region is getting updating household travel surveying work next year (last time was 1994) (also a federal requirement). The data collection and analysis continue to improve, but TriMet is a rail building organization, not one that uses this information to improve the transit system. This will change some day.. ;-)

Don't you think this could be better accomplished online? Meaning I could just type in my information as it changes instead of waiting for Trimet to call or ask me (on the train...or wherever they ask)

[RED_PDXer]

Don't you think this could be better accomplished online? Meaning I could just type in my information as it changes instead of waiting for Trimet to call or ask me (on the train...or wherever they ask)

Nope, it wouldn't be a representative sample. An online survey would be self-selecting. Some people may never visit the website and others wouldn't take the their own time to complete it. It would over-represent some populations and under-represent others. At least on-board surveys have a captive audience for the most part. There's a whole science to survey instruments, use, and analyses. I'm hardly an expert, but from what I know, modern technology hasn't changed the field much yet. That probably won't always be the case though..

Anyone has the opportunity to provide comments to TriMet about origin and destinations they'd like better service between by just visiting the website though.. I suppose if there was overwhelming demand for some service and it was intuitively sound, there might be action taken. However, there's no money available for service expansion now and taking away existing service, no matter how unproductive it is, is like wrestling a newborn baby from its mother..

[jaxg8r1]

Nope, it wouldn't be a representative sample. An online survey would be self-selecting. Some people may never visit the website and others wouldn't take the their own time to complete it. It would over-represent some populations and under-represent others. At least on-board surveys have a captive audience for the most part. There's a whole science to survey instruments, use, and analyses. I'm hardly an expert, but from what I know, modern technology hasn't changed the field much yet. That probably won't always be the case though..

Anyone has the opportunity to provide comments to TriMet about origin and destinations they'd like better service between by just visiting the website though.. I suppose if there was overwhelming demand for some service and it was intuitively sound, there might be action taken. However, there's no money available for service expansion now and taking away existing service, no matter how unproductive it is, is like wrestling a newborn baby from its mother..


But on-board doesn't capture potential riders. And its also flawed (as far as sampling statistics go).

Of course I know that no matter the way of doing it, statistical sampling isn't a perfect science.

I just wonder if the low cost of doing it online might capture data that other ways might not (and perhaps could be combined with on-board surveys?)

Just a thought :cheers:

[JordanL]

RED, TriMet is as much an economic organization as they are a transportation organization. Portland uses TriMet to direct and promote growth and investment which it uses to pay for TriMet's expansion and operating costs, among other things.

You seem to be under the delusion that TriMet's only purpose is to move people, but that's simply not the case.

[ProTram]

Some choose not to see the forest for the trees...:)

[RED_PDXer]

RED, TriMet is as much an economic organization as they are a transportation organization. Portland uses TriMet to direct and promote growth and investment which it uses to pay for TriMet's expansion and operating costs, among other things.

You seem to be under the delusion that TriMet's only purpose is to move people, but that's simply not the case.

These aren't TriMet projects.. these are City of Portland projects, as is the current streetcar. This is the same agency that should be maintaining streets, building bicycle infrastructure, building sidewalks, improving signal operations, etc.. I guess they want to dilute their limited money with one more giant task.

If they want to remove one lane of autos from each of these streets, I'd be fine with it.. That way we might have efficient and attractive transit, and more reason to take it because of the traffic.

Anyway, there's no fooling all you real transit planners on here, which I must be the only one who's not.. ;-)

[RED_PDXer]

At least NYC attempts to reconcile access (local, but limited stops) with mobility (improved travel times). Without Cars, A Different Sort of 42nd St. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/realestate/commercial/14rail.html?_r=1&hpw). It's also interesting to note that this study includes self-propelled (aka. "bus") vehicles. It's almost amazing that a city with the density of NYC would consider buses yet Portland will not.. almost.. :rolleyes:

[alexjon]

I love this notion that because Portland invests in rail, they don't care about buses. Even though there were tons of bus improvements on the mall, new buses in the system, a prioritizing of bus routes where some saw no cuts while all of the MAX system sustained cuts.

As to NYC, do you know what Brooklyn is pushing for? Streetcars. Yep, like Portland's.

[NJD]

Question? Which do you think is more polluting: driving a full size Hummer or a Prius of the same year for the duration of its useful life?

Answer: The Prius. Part of the greater 'greenwashing' problem, the batteries in its engine are built from strip mined material from Greenland and processed in Germany then shipped to Japan then to the US. Disposal is also a problem. The overall carbon footprint from the battery alone is more than building and driving a Hummer for 300-500,000 miles.

What does this have to do with the Portland Streetcar? Well, an opinion of what is good, even if the idea is accepted as 'good' by the overwhelming majority, can be vastly different than reality.

Streetcars are a tricky one. Comparing a streetcar to a bus can create statistics that prove superiority over each other depending on how and what aspect you are studying. The streetcar is more expensive than a bus to buy and to build its infrastructure, but at the same time a streetcar is cheaper to run and has a vastly longer life span. Also, the streetcar is a development tool as it was in 1890, and as it is today. Buses have proven to not be development tools, but rather commuting options. I'd rather ride the streetcar than a bus, but then again I'd also prefer to ride in a Prius than a Hummer. Which is 'better?' I think from the City's view the streetcar is better as it has been a proven development tool, but Trimet, who only operates the Streetcar by contract, has been skeptical and reluctant to help the City build the Streetcar because it favors buses for speed and low capital funding.

As I see it, both are 'better,' and both are different in nature and purpose. I don't think that, in this online forum discussion, that buses are even an alternative for the City (definitely THE alternative for Trimet though).

Please feel free to retort, I appreciate different viewpoints. And... save the planet, drive a hummer! j/k ride your bike ;)

[ProTram]

Regarding simply my opinion of what a successful mass transit system should look like reflects the same construct of tree limbs. Buses should really only serve primarily as feeders into and out of the larger network (provided a larger network is established). Streetcars outside of a downtown should act in much the same way. They are the smaller limbs all connecting in some way to the arterial main vein.

And anywhere a light rail/subway/heavy rail line is established, there should be a re-alignment of the localized bus network to better serve individual neighborhoods and to alleviate the need to support a backbone in the network.

[philopdx]

Question? Which do you think is more polluting: driving a full size Hummer or a Prius of the same year for the duration of its useful life?

Answer: The Prius. Part of the greater 'greenwashing' problem, the batteries in its engine are built from strip mined material from Greenland and processed in Germany then shipped to Japan then to the US. Disposal is also a problem. The overall carbon footprint from the battery alone is more than building and driving a Hummer for 300-500,000 miles.

What does this have to do with the Portland Streetcar? Well, an opinion of what is good, even if the idea is accepted as 'good' by the overwhelming majority, can be vastly different than reality.

Please feel free to retort, I appreciate different viewpoints. And... save the planet, drive a hummer! j/k ride your bike ;)

Sorry, I don't buy it. I'd like to see the metrics involved here. Let's not forget all the constituent mass of a hummer has to be mined and produced from some far flung corner of the globe as well.

But maybe you're on to something! I suppose iron ore has a lower carbon footprint than pig iron, which in turn has a lower carbon footprint than steel; steel has a lower carbon footprint than aluminum and aluminum has a lower carbon footprint than carbon fiber and most certainly silicon!

Let us then set forth into the future and build our motorized carriages out of iron ore bound with twine and smugly look down upon the delusional bourgeoisie with their aluminum sub-frames, carbon fiber components and variable-valve timing run by filthy silicon circuit boards while we snatch environmental purity from the jaws of the industrial revolution!!!

YABBA DABBA DO!!

[rsbear]

NJD said I could get a Hummer, so I'm going with that! :haha:

[RED_PDXer]

I love this notion that because Portland invests in rail, they don't care about buses. Even though there were tons of bus improvements on the mall, new buses in the system, a prioritizing of bus routes where some saw no cuts while all of the MAX system sustained cuts.

As to NYC, do you know what Brooklyn is pushing for? Streetcars. Yep, like Portland's.

1. The last bus line to be upgraded to "Frequent Service" was 5 years ago. There are no Frequent Service upgrades in sight - not because of the economy, but because operating dollars have been allocated to current and future rail projects all the way out to 2015 or whenever Portland-Milwaukie is built.
2. The Transit Mall spaced bus stops further apart (and thus improved travel times), but it didn't take $100 million to do that - the money was mostly spent on relocating utilities, rebuilding streets and sidewalks, etc.. (only because rail was moved onto the same street). Many buses were moved off the mall permanently to Jefferson and Columbia because of the introduction of light rail on 5th and 6th.
3. Some bus lines like Line 72 and 14 were spared from cuts while all MAX lines sustained some limited cuts. However, a new MAX line was also opened at the same time, so there was an overall increase in MAX service. There are 80+ bus routes and the few that have very frequent service have high enough ridership to justify each trip. There are a few MAX trips that were cut from the Blue line each day - a burden few people will bear.

Anyway, as you can see, there is justification for a feeling of neglect of the bus system for those that rely on transit to get around. I'm not arguing that investing in MAX or streetcar is necessarily bad, but focusing on one and ignoring the other has consequences to the overall transit system. The City prefers to focus on one mode.

As for streetcars in Brooklyn, it wouldn't be more than a tourist ride unless they locate them in exclusive ROW, which they are considering, along with extended length streetcars. That is significantly different than any current proposals in Portland, where they are expected to operate in mixed traffic and subject to congestion - same as the bus, but 10x the cost.

[Okstate]

^ I think some of the eastside loop project will incorporate the streetcar having its own lane.

[NJD]

Well, Earl announced that the eastside loop has officially received full funding! That means construction will start once utility relocation is finished.

As for streetcars in Brooklyn, it wouldn't be more than a tourist ride

That is the exact same thing conservative radio hosts, The Oregonian and Bojack said about the Portland Streetcar before it was built.

Today 11,605 daily riders on the 2.4 mile line, 95% local Portlanders. Initial ridership projections fy 2025 was 3500 daily riders.



U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray Lahood wrote after the unveiling of the first Oregon Ironworks Streetcar:

“You know, it hasn’t been easy to fund streetcars in this country. But what I saw in Portland today has impressed me. As I told the folks at Oregon Iron Works, I’m committed to seeing that the streetcar program can be funded with federal dollars. A streetcar is a perfect fit for some communities—certainly Portland sees it as a fit for them—and suiting the needs and qualities of the local population is what livable communities are all about.”

[RED_PDXer]

^ I think some of the eastside loop project will incorporate the streetcar having its own lane.

Yes, a couple blocks adjacent to the convention center and across I-84. That bypasses a small part of the congestion on those streets.

[RED_PDXer]

That is the exact same thing conservative radio hosts, The Oregonian and Bojack said about the Portland Streetcar before it was built.

Today 11,605 daily riders on the 2.4 mile line, 95% local Portlanders. Initial ridership projections fy 2025 was 3500 daily riders.


I'd actually be much more positive about the first streetcar being built, especially since it added a new route through downtown and was part of massive redevelopment effort. Knowing how it functions makes me doubt it's success can be replicated so easily.

^95% local Portlanders? where'd you get that stat?

I'm sure ridership has nothing to do with no fare inspections and being located largely within fareless square - which is great.. hope they expand it to the central eastside so we see similar results. It also won't hurt to remove all competitive bus service like Line 6 from MLK/Grand.

[NJD]

Here's an interesting pro-streetcar video from Cincinnati. (you may want to turn down the volume)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRn_MQt28_g&feature=player_embedded

[JordanL]

My God Red... you have quite the stick up your ass when it comes to the MAX.

[urbanlife]

To point out something that always seems to get overlooked...anyone can walk faster than the streetcar when it comes to a few stops, which if you are capable of walking but choose to take the streetcar for a few stops, that is kind of a lazy thing.

But what I really wanted to point out is that it is impossible to walk from NW 23rd stop to the stop at Park Blocks at PSU in 20 minutes...it is even more impossible to walk from NW 23rd to the South Waterfront in 35 minutes. So one should never compare walking speed to streetcar speed.


Also, anyone care to point out a city that is a healthy growing city that does not provide a rail system of some kind? Buses should not be the only alternative to driving. It should be a piece to a complex fabric of transportation modes that make a city function.

[erinkg]

To point out something that always seems to get overlooked...anyone can walk faster than the streetcar when it comes to a few stops, which if you are capable of walking but choose to take the streetcar for a few stops, that is kind of a lazy thing.

But what I really wanted to point out is that it is impossible to walk from NW 23rd stop to the stop at Park Blocks at PSU in 20 minutes...it is even more impossible to walk from NW 23rd to the South Waterfront in 35 minutes. So one should never compare walking speed to streetcar speed.


I agree. You can't even walk from South Waterfront to Riverplace faster than the streetcar. The only time I've walked home (from downtown to SoWa) was when we just missed the streetcar and didn't want to wait 15-20 minutes for the next one. And even then, the streetcar caught up with us right as we got to OHSU (we started walking from 4th and Harrison).

[2oh1]

To point out something that always seems to get overlooked...anyone can walk faster than the streetcar when it comes to a few stops.

This must be for a few specific stops, because I live near the 10th & Jefferson stop, and I can't even beat the streetcar from there to the library four blocks away, let alone attempt to beat the streetcar to the Pearl. Even for whatever few specific stops people say they can walk faster than the streetcar, I won't believe it until I see it - unless those idiots are complaining about rush hour traffic, in which case my feet are apparently faster than a Porsche. I guess that means Porsches suck, eh.

Every time I'm on the streetcar and I see someone miss it by just a second and choose to run to catch the next stop, I almost never see them make it, and if they do, it means the streetcar hit serious traffic and a red light too... and still, the person who missed it had to run and is now huffing and puffing. I only ever see people try to catch the streetcar in the Pearl where traffic gets hairy. And like I said, they usually don't make it.

I'm not trying to suggest that the streetcar is as fast as a subway would be, but to say it's slower than walking on foot is exaggerating to the point of discrediting oneself in a debate.

[JordanL]

This must be for a few specific stops, because I live near the 10th & Jefferson stop, and I can't even beat the streetcar from there to the library four blocks away, let alone attempt to beat the streetcar to the Pearl. Even for whatever few specific stops people say they can walk faster than the streetcar, I won't believe it until I see it - unless those idiots are complaining about rush hour traffic, in which case my feet are apparently faster than a Porsche. I guess that means Porsches suck, eh.

Every time I'm on the streetcar and I see someone miss it by just a second and choose to run to catch the next stop, I almost never see them make it, and if they do, it means the streetcar hit serious traffic and a red light too... and still, the person who missed it had to run and is now huffing and puffing. I only ever see people try to catch the streetcar in the Pearl where traffic gets hairy. And like I said, they usually don't make it.

I'm not trying to suggest that the streetcar is as fast as a subway would be, but to say it's slower than walking on foot is exaggerating to the point of discrediting oneself in a debate.

Anytime the streetcar (or MAX for that matter) makes a sharp turn it's dramatically faster to walk, both because of stop signs/lights, and because of the reduced speed of the turns.

This is a very limited scenario however. Unfortunately the streetcar makes about 3-4 sharp turns around PSU, which is the single largest transit destination in the system, which is probably what contributes to the perception of walking being faster. (Also of note, the streetcar has to cross two MAX lines and Broadway in the vicinity, again slowing its travel speed.)

Overall, I absolutely use the streetcar to go places when one is coming. My "walking is faster" opinion usually stems more form the fact that lead times on streetcars are usually pretty close to 20 minutes when I'm traveling, making it faster for me to walk from PSU to the Pearl, but as urbanlife pointed out, not 23rd. (Although I very rarely am traveling from PSU to 23rd.)

I almost always choose to walk from PSU to Powell's, because it's faster. And that is because there simply aren't enough streetcars operating on the line.

[urbanlife]

I usually choose to walk from the PSU to Powells because I like to walk, plus it is only a mile-ish walk, which is a shame that most people in this country consider that too far to walk...The Brooklyn Bridge is almost a mile long walk and New Yorkers have no problem doing that daily.

But seriously, JordanL, you are right, there are not enough streetcars running, the wait time for much of the day should be less than 15 minutes. The 20 minute time between trains means that you will more than always have a lead time before the next train comes by....but then again, we do live in a country where people would rather wait 20 minutes for the train than to make a 15 minute walk.