[PacificNW]

8-10 lanes??? Whoa, then they should think about relocating the eastbank link ASAP. Maybe since they are working on 205 for light rail, etc. they should consider it as I-5 (with the 8-10 lanes) and rename I-5 downtown to I-205 and push it east and underground with fewer lanes than 8-10.

[MarkDaMan]

I-5 bridge estimate jumps to $6 billion
Even at low end of projected range, fixes likely to set a record
By Jim Redden
The Portland Tribune, Feb 16, 2007


The Columbia River Crossing project staff now estimates it could cost up to $6 billion to build a new Interstate 5 bridge across the Columbia River — including the cost of adding a mass transit line and upgrading freeway interchanges.

The new estimate was finalized early this year, project spokeswoman Danielle Cogan said.

“The range we’re talking about is between $2 billion and $6 billion, in 2006 dollars,” she said. “Because the work can’t actually begin until 2010 at the earliest, the final cost could be higher because of inflation.”

The bistate Columbia River Crossing Task Force that’s considering the project is scheduled to vote Feb. 27 whether to approve the proposed replacement bridge for detailed study.

The group will meet from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. in the Portland offices of the Oregon Department of Transportation, 123 N.W. Flanders St.

Although no official cost estimates previously have been released, some task force members have been using a $2 billion estimate when discussing the project in public.

The new $6 billion figure is sparking a debate over the project at Metro, the regional government charged with managing growth in most of Multnomah, Washington and Clackamas counties. The elected Metro Council must approve the project for it to go forward

“The new cost estimate is stunning,” said Metro Councilor Robert Liberty, who has been skeptical of the project. “That’s almost as much money as we’re projecting to have for all other regional transportation projects over the next 20 years.”

After Liberty revealed the new cost estimates at a Tuesday work session, the council agreed to hold a public hearing on the project as part of its next regular meeting, scheduled for 2 p.m. Thursday at the agency’s headquarters, 600 N.E. Grand Ave.

Liberty said the Columbia River Crossing Task Force needs to study other, lower-cost alternatives for reducing congestion on and around the I-5 bridge, where traffic consistently backs up during morning and evening rush hours.

“We need to have a full range of options before making a decision,” Liberty said.

The new estimate includes the cost of upgrading all freeway interchanges between North Columbia Boulevard in Portland and State Route 500 in Vancouver, Wash. Building only the replacement bridge and forgoing the interchange improvements is not an option, Cogan said. She pointed out that much of the current congestion is created by poorly spaced on- and offramps.

“It doesn’t make any sense to replace the bridge and not fix the interchanges,” she said.

Even at $2 billion, the project would be the most expensive transportation project in state history, requiring a special appropriation from Congress and motor vehicle tolls to help pay for it.

jimredden@portlandtribune.com


I think this is important to be made public...this project and task force was about replacing the bridge, the estimate went up because the project scope increased dramatically. It should be up to the people whether we look at replacing just the bridge or including changing the freeway system feeding onto it, which should than open up the discussion of a 'big tunnel' project or whatever they call it.

[Urbanpdx]

A Billion Here, a Billion There, Pretty Soon You Are Talking About Real Money

posted in Transportation, News commentary http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=61

Portland-Vancouver are debating the replacement of the Interstate 5 bridges crossing the Columbia River. Cost estimates are now as high as $6 billion.

“The bridge is probably a billion,” says the project manager. “The transit piece, similar.” Plus various extras; it all adds up.

The original Columbia River bridge was built in 1917, and a duplicate bridge was added in 1958.

Wait just a minute. The bridge has three lanes in each direction. Each of those lanes carry far more people than are likely to ride on any transit line. Yet the transit line is expected to cost as much as the bridge?

Not only that, but the planners appear to be dead-set against expanding roadway capacities. Planners prepared twelve preliminary alternatives, only two of which included expanded bridge capacities for cars.

Now they have narrowed the selection to three alternatives, none of which expand the roadways. Instead, the recommended alternatives are: do nothing, blow a huge amount of money on bus-rapid transit, and blow even more money on light rail.

Traffic records show that, shortly after the second bridge opened in 1958, about 30,000 vehicles a day crossed the twin bridges. By 1982, this had increased to 110,000 vehicles a day on six lanes.

In late 1982, the states opened a parallel I-205 bridge with eight lanes several miles up the Columbia River. This carried almost 40,000 vehicles a day in its first year, half of them drawn from the I-5 bridges. By 1994, the I-205 bridge reached 100,000 vehicles a day, while I-5 was moving 112,000 vehicles a day. As of 2006, I-5 carried 132,000 per day, or about 22,000 vehicles per lane, while I-205 was 146,000, or more than 18,000 vehicles per lane.

A straight-line projection of traffic growth indicates that demand for both crossings may be close to 400,000 vehicles a day by 2025. That’s more than 40 percent above current traffic levels. Straight-line projections are pretty crude, but considering that the region’s population is expected to continue growing at historic rates, this probably isn’t very far off.

However, congestion could temper this use. Considering daily peaks and troughs, the 22,000 cars per lane on the I-5 bridge is pretty close to the limit for a freeway. According to Highway Statistics 2005, table HM72, the most carried by any urban freeway system is a little more than 25,000 vehicle miles per lane mile.

Rush-hour congestion leads people to leave earlier or later than they would prefer in order to avoid that congestion. This leads to a broadening of the peaks in traffic flows. This is visible in the chart below, which shows hourly flows across the I-5 bridge. (Click on the chart and scroll down to see how peaks have changed since 1983.)

http://ti.org/I5in2006.jpg

By comparison, the peaks in traffic on the I-205 bridge are still sharp, indicating that congestion is not yet a serious problem on this bridge.

http://ti.org/I205in2006.jpg

This shows that the maximum practical capacity of the two bridges is not much more than about 310,000 vehicles per day — and that will be accompanied by a lot more congestion that is experienced today. If demand really reaches 400,000 vehicles in 2025 (which isn’t that far away), some 80,000 to 90,000 of those trips are going to go somewhere else. This could mean more job growth in Vancouver, less in Portland. Or it could mean more job growth in Boise, Billings, or other less congested cities.

The problem with congestion is actually pretty simple. Freeway lanes can supposedly move about 2,200 cars per hour, though it is probably somewhat higher if drivers dare to drive closer together. But this is at about 40 to 50 miles per hour. If traffic slows for any reason, the capacity rapidly declines. Let’s say traffic slows so that the capacity falls below 1,500 cars per hour. Then traffic will be stop-and-go, bumper-to-bumper, until actual traffic levels fall below 1,500. Since this can take hours, any brief traffic slowdown can result in lengthy delays.

One solution to this problem is to make sure that traffic flows never exceed some lower number, say 1,800 vehicles per hour, that is less vulnerable to slowdowns. That is partly what ramp metering is about. But the better way is congestion tolling: just vary the tolls by traffic levels to make sure traffic never exceeds the target volume.

http://ti.org/CAHOTLanes.jpg

The above photo shows California SR91, with congestion-tolled lanes in the middle and untolled lanes on the outside. Although there are far more vehicles in the untolled lanes, the tolled lanes are moving more vehicles per hour. In terms of passenger miles per hour, they are doing more work than the untolled lanes.

Americans once resisted tolls but now appear to accept them as a solution to congestion. However, they (or at least the politicians they elect) still resist tolling lanes that have historically been free. So Robert Poole and others have suggested that we build HOT lane networks parallel to existing free lanes throughout urban areas. Such networks will make it possible for those who choose to pay tolls to get anywhere in the urban areas at rush hour in the same amount of time as it would take them at midnight.

Columbia River crossing planners did not seriously consider the idea of adding new tolled lanes to supplement existing untolled lanes. Instead, they are more interested in building a light-rail bridge across the river, a dream of Portland planners for years. Planners are certainly dreaming today if they think they can divert much of I-5’s traffic to bus or light rail.

Rail advocates love to compare rail capacities with actual highway volumes, but that is comparing apples to oranges. If a freeway lane carried 1,800 vehicles per hour 24 hours a day with 1.6 people per vehicle, it would move nearly 70,000 passenger miles per day. Considering peaks and troughs in flows, we have seen that actual uses max out at around 40,000 passenger miles a day. In the same way, rail lines have peaks and troughs in flows — most do not even operate 24 hours a day, and during the hours they operate, they only come close to capacity a few hours of the day.

Boston has the nation’s most heavily used light-rail system. The 2005 National Transit Database reports that average weekday traffic on this system was less than 12,000 passenger miles per directional-route mile — that is, per mile of track in a double-track line — each day. That is maybe a third of a typical urban freeway lane, and only a quarter of the heavily used lanes over the Columbia River.

A mile of track occupies roughly the same space as a freeway lane, so freeways are a more efficient use of land than light-rail transit. The only rail lines in the U.S. that are more efficient than freeways are New York City subways. Even accepting the idea that a lot of Vancouver commuters will be tempted to use a light-rail line, it is very unlikely that this line will do much better than Boston’s system, much less carry as many as a freeway lane.

So Portland is proposing to spend a billion dollars replacing the bridges with new freeway bridges of no greater capacity than today. These I-5 bridges will continue to carry at least 200,000 people across them per day (approximately 130,000 vehicles times 1.6), with demand for both crossings expected to grow by nearly 200,000 more in the next twenty years.

To accommodate this demand, Portland wants to spend another billion dollars building a light-rail line that might possibly carry about 20,000 people per day, or only about 10 percent of the projected growth in traffic. This is an absurd waste of resources, especially considering that light-rail fares won’t even cover the operating costs, and will cover zero percent of the capital costs, of the rail line and bridges.

It would make a lot more sense to either build new highway bridges with greater capacities or build a third highway crossing somewhere. The new capacity, or new bridges, could be tolled to insure that it never gets congested. These tolls would help cover the costs, and probably could cover the entire cost of the new bridges if all lanes were tolled.

The good news is that the Federal Highway Administration is openly questioning Portland’s anti-highway transportation planning. The Columbia River crossing is a test case. If Portland refuses to add new highway capacity, the federal government should deny interstate highway funds to the region.

Unless Portland’s policies change, if you plan to travel between Seattle and California anytime in the next fifty years, I strongly advise you to fly.

[NJD]

ahhh, the antiplanner... how utterly opinionated and self-rightious.

i like the part where it focuses on the $1 billion cost for transit (which doesn't have any mention of how they came up with this number), but doesn't even mention the $5 billion for roadways (skirts around it by saying the bridge costs the same). i love number manipulation.

[Urbanpdx]

I agree that he is often guilty of that but the push to efficiently allocate scarce road space with congestion pricing needs more attention.

[NJD]

i just don't understand why this small kink in I-5 is so ungodly expensive when we could spend a fraction of that improving the worse bottlenecks of I-5 (2 lanes at the rose quarter 1/4 mile from the end interchange of I-84 is just silly, same with the columbia slew 2 lanes, and the on/off ramps at jantzen beach are way to close to the current interstate bridge.... ). can we start calling this project "Mt. Hood Freway II"?

[Urbanpdx]

ahhh, the antiplanner... how utterly opinionated and self-rightious.

i like the part where it focuses on the $1 billion cost for transit (which doesn't have any mention of how they came up with this number), but doesn't even mention the $5 billion for roadways (skirts around it by saying the bridge costs the same). i love number manipulation.

This is the source of his Billion dollar number, the project manager:

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_021307_news_I5_bridge.7d6584f4.html

[NJD]

thanks, the entire project still seams too high... we could tunnel the whole thing for that cost.

[Urbanpdx]

I agree. I agree with those that believe the tram experience has something to do with this spun number. Purhaps being able to say that LRT will only add 15-20% to the cost has something to do with it too. If the cost was only $1 million for the bridge and to add LRT doubles the cost, that would be difficult sound bite for rail advocates to overcome.

[bvpcvm]

fwiw, i-5 from columbia blvd to sr500 is almost 5 miles. i can see where rebuilding 5 miles of urban freeway, including a bridge, and on top of that keeping the road open during construction, would add up to quite a bit. i understand the logic behind rebuilding all the interchanges while they're at it, but maybe it would be worthwhile to look at building a series of local access bridges. it looks like bridges could make sense at jantzen beach (with lrt), ne 33rd, 181st and maybe camas. i certainly don't want to see new freeways everywhere, but making connections between existing nodes of infrastructure makes a lot of sense.

[bvpcvm]

The new estimate includes the cost of upgrading all freeway interchanges between North Columbia Boulevard in Portland and State Route 500 in Vancouver, Wash. Building only the replacement bridge and forgoing the interchange improvements is not an option, Cogan said. She pointed out that much of the current congestion is created by poorly spaced on- and offramps.

“It doesn’t make any sense to replace the bridge and not fix the interchanges,” she said.

in that case, let's just fix the interchanges and retrofit the bridge.

[mcbaby]

what will become of the i-5 bridge spans? will they be torn down? used as scrap metal? what if they were relocated? bridge between camas and troutdale?

[bvpcvm]

^ i think that's still being debated

[sirsimon]

Jeez...it sounds like we are still a long way from figuring out what to do, let alone building it. This is a pretty complex issue, and we want to get it "right", so that we don't need to re-visit it anytime soon. Oregon and Washington have a lot at stake here.

[Urbanpdx]

The last estimates (2003) that I saw were slightly less than $6 billion for the West Side Bypass. I'm not sure if that included the bridge or not but that freeway seems to me to do a lot more for the region AND for I-5 traffic than a new I-5 bridge.

[alexjon]

Highways are lovely symbols of freedom, and transit is for poor people. Case closed, let's pave over some more houses! WOOHOO!

[edgepdx]

I agree that he is often guilty of that but the push to efficiently allocate scarce road space with congestion pricing needs more attention.

Right, because the wealthy HAVE to be places. Not like the poor have anywhere to go, so make'm sit in traffic. How democratic. :yuck:

This whole thing is just crazy. Basically this is all about subsidizing people who choose to live in Vancouver. If it wasn't for Vancouver the current I-5 bridge would serve actual interstate traffic just fine. So let's see at a population of 165,000 were talking about $36,000 per resident of Vancouver for the new bridge. That's 15,000 $400,000 houses on the Oregon side of the river.

[NJD]

Let's start with 'congestion pricing' for everyone: TOLLS. When we figure out how much money we can reasonably collect by tolling (i.e. $2-4), we then set a BUDGET for the CRC. Wouldn't that make the improvements pay for themselves and effect only those who use it? As long as there are transit, bicycle and pedestrian improvements as well as the roadway improvements then there will be plenty of options for this transportation corridor instead of just a highway.

[tworivers]

Found this today (sorry if it's been posted before):

http://www.newinterstatebridge.com/

[WestCoast]

Anyone on the east side got any pictures of the new 205 MAX?

sounds like they're just moving dirt around, but I never get over there and would love a peak.

[bvpcvm]

^ i drove down 205 on friday; there's almost nothing happening yet. there were maybe two small areas where some excavation has started, but it wasn't even clear if it was for max or something else.

[65MAX]

Yeah, there's really nothing much to photograph. Construction has started, but they've barely started moving dirt, the grass has been stripped out in a couple of spots, not even any major equipment on site that I could see.

[pdxstreetcar]

I think I recall that the I-205 MAX schedule has most station construction beginning at the end of this year. The Commuter rail station construction is also around the end of the year.

[MarkDaMan]

Trail’s gap set to close
Portland Tribune

Portland Parks & Recreation officials will present three design options Wednesday for a half-mile trail that will close a gap in the Marine Drive Trail that runs from North Portland to Troutdale.

The half-mile gap is in the Bridgeton neighborhood southeast of Interstate 5 and Northeast Marine Drive.

Closing the gap will provide an off-street, multimodal route as an alternative to Marine Drive. The completed trail will run uninterrupted from Kelley Point Park to Troutdale, a distance of 18 miles.

A design team from Portland’s Nevue Ngan Associates created the three designs in part from public comments given at a meeting in October and in written comments received since then, parks officials said.

The designs will be presented from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. Wednesday at the Columbia High School gymnasium, 716 N.E. Marine Drive. The preferred design will be unveiled at a Bridgeton Neighborhood Association meeting April 18 along with a review of the next steps in the project, parks officials said.
http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=117192594129904200

[tworivers]

The first ConnectOregon is what completed the funding package for the Lowell streetcar extension.

ODOT makes ConnectOregon2 its first focus
by Libby Tucker
Daily Journal of Commerce
02/14/2007


The Oregon Department of Transportation’s first priority as the 2007 Legislature convenes is to help pass ConnectOregon2, agency director Matt Garrett said Friday in Salem at a meeting with the Associated General Contractors Oregon Columbia chapter.

Gov. Ted Kulongoski’s proposed $100 million multi-modal transportation package is a follow up to his $100 million ConnectOregon package that the 2005 Legislature passed to fund marine, rail, aviation and transit infrastructure statewide.

“The governor is my boss,” Garrett said, and so the ODOT head will focus his attention first on addressing Kulongoski’s priorities.

But the state’s business community, led in Salem by lobbyists with the Oregon Business Council and the Portland Business Alliance, are also working to submit a $300 million transportation package that would go far beyond what Kulongoski proposes.

“It’s my hope that we can move quickly past ConnectOregon2 and turn our attention to a more comprehensive investment in the highway portfolio,” Garrett said. If the Legislature doesn’t pass a larger bill, he said, “we’re liquidating a multi-billion investment.”

The Oregon Business Council has not yet determined a funding source for its highway proposal, but Garrett reminded his audience of contractors that “you all know there are traditional methods” including raising the state’s gas tax or instituting road user fees or tolling.

Nor has the Oregon Business Council identified the specific investments its funding package would support.

The AGC, though a part of the general business community, has a somewhat distinct view as a builders’ association of how the funds should be spent.

“We need to make a sustainable investment that will be of the nature that takes care of preservation and maintenance issues” rather than focusing entirely on new construction, said Jessica Adamson, legislative affairs director for AGC.

“No one is contradicting the other,” Adamson said. “Our message has been a bit more tailored,” she said, than that of the Oregon Business Council and Portland Business Alliance.

As it did during passage of the Oregon Transportation Investment Act III of 2003, which secured $1.3 billion for bridges in the state highway system, ODOT will remain behind the scenes while the business community lobbies the Legislature for additional transportation funding, Garrett said. But in the end, he said, ODOT will determine the state’s transportation funding priorities.

“We need the business community to be actively involved,” Garrett said. “We as ODOT articulate the need, and the business community takes it and articulates it to the Legislature.”

[NJD]

http://www.praguepost.com/articles/2007/02/21/portlands-streetcar-named-skoda.php

Portland's streetcar named Škoda
Czech-made trams ride the rails in the City of Roses

By Iva Skochová
Staff Writer, The Prague Post
February 21st, 2007

http://www.praguepost.com/articles/photos/2007-02-21/3100-PPA11.jpg

Aside from the thriving beer-drinking culture, Prague and Portland, Oregon, have something else in common. When stumbling out of a pub in either city, you can hop onto a Czech-made tram to take you home.

Yet the experience is utterly different. The trams in Portland are new, smell nice and are packed primarily with hipsters, not pensioners. The well-oiled public relations machine of the City of Portland has managed to make riding a tram — or, as they say, trolley or streetcar — seem enjoyable while making people believe they are doing something positive for the environment.

“Portland is very eco-friendly,” said Karyn Forsythe, a Portland resident, to explain why Portlanders like their streetcar.

The city, which has been successfully using Czech trolleys made by Škoda Transportation in the downtown area for six years, again chose Škoda Feb. 9 to supply a prototype for more streetcars.

“The prototype will be delivered to Portland in the fall of 2008,” said Radka Pistoriusová, spokeswoman for Škoda Transportation, a company headquartered in Plzeň, west Bohemia. She added that another tender would determine how many trams the city would buy.

Škoda Transportation, a company that primarily made train locomotives until the fall of communism, when the demand for locomotives plummeted, is re-establishing itself as a premier manufacturer of trams, light-rail trains and subway cars.

“Trams are the new flagship of Škoda Transportation,” Pistoriusová said. “By winning a tender in the United States, Škoda is tapping into a potentially lucrative market that remained elusive to this point. [Trams] currently account for some 50 percent to 60 percent of our production.”

Czech-American Tram

Škoda Transportation sees the opportunity as a major breakthrough, although only part of the order will actually get manufactured in the Czech Republic. The rest will be produced in Oregon by a U.S. company, Oregon Iron Works (OIW), which will get a license to make Škoda trams based on Czech know-how.

“Partnership with an American manufacturer will enable us to establish our position on the U.S. market,” says Tomáš Krsek, general manager of Škoda Transportation.

Portland Streetcar Inc., the public benefit corporation responsible for Portland’s tram, must adhere to the strict federal “Buy America” law, which forces select companies to manufacture at least 60 percent of the trams on American soil. Therefore, foreign producers, in this case Škoda, only get a reduced cut.

All of the “engine gear will be made in Plzeň,” Pistoriusová said. “The design will be based on the trams already running in Portland.”
Škoda already made seven trams for Portland in 2001. Another three are currently operating in Tacoma, Washington.

“Streetcars are becoming very popular in the U.S.,” said Kay Dannen, community relations manager for Portland Streetcar. “Currently, we know of at least 80 cities across the U.S. either studying, designing or constructing a streetcar system.”

The return of the streetcar

Like other cities in the United States, Portland had an extensive urban rail system by the beginning of the 20th century. After World War I, however, streetcars began to feel the pinch from the automobile. National City Lines, a holding company composed of General Motors, Firestone Tire and Standard Oil of California, acquired most streetcar systems throughout the United States and dismantled them in order to force the growth of bus and car transportation. In Portland, the last streetcars were retired in 1950.

In the past two decades, cities like Portland have been trying to revive the downtown areas and motivate people to come back from the suburbs to live in the city. According to a recent report by the Office of Transportation and Portland Streetcar, public transportation — especially the streetcar — is at the core of the effort.

“It services two very popular neighborhoods, as well as the Portland State University campus,” said Matthew Stock, a Portland resident who rides the streetcar to and from work every day.

The streetcar helped create the city’s trendiest neighborhood, the Pearl District. The area, gritty and industrial just 10 years ago, now boasts contemporary art galleries, chic boutiques and the city’s hottest restaurants.

“Since 1997, over $2.2 billion have been invested within two blocks of the streetcar alignment,” Dannen said. “7,248 new housing units, 4.6 million square feet [427,354 square meters] of office, institutional, retail and hotel construction has been put up.”

‘A welcome treat’

Since Portland has managed to successfully bring people to live downtown, it will continue to motivate them to use public transportation. Luckily for Škoda, it will need more trams.

“Our ridership has grown from 3,700 [per] average weekday in 2001 to 9,000 [per] average weekday in 2006,” Dannen said.

The biggest complaint they get from customers is that the trolleys operate slowly.

Janet Schober, who works in downtown Portland, said she uses the trolley mostly for convenience. “I think I can actually walk more quickly than waiting for the next trolley and then riding and stopping at about seven stops in between my origination and destination. But, if it’s raining, a ride is a welcome treat.”

The tram’s not only convenient, but the ride’s free downtown. By creating a “fareless square,” the city hopes to reduce short inner-city auto trips, parking demand, congestion and pollution. Yet another set of aspects that Prague and Portland share.


:cheers: i love the first line about what we have in common

[alexjon]

Speaking of...

... if I'm banned from the Double X dance due to last friday's stupidity, what's a good bar to hit tomorrow night?

[zilfondel]

Time to go to Prague and brag about being from Portland! Wonder if anyone over there will buy me a beer? =D

[65MAX]

"Škoda Transportation sees the opportunity as a major breakthrough, although only part of the order will actually get manufactured in the Czech Republic. The rest will be produced in Oregon by a U.S. company, Oregon Iron Works (OIW), which will get a license to make Škoda trams based on Czech know-how."

This is the most important part of the article.

[MarkDaMan]

Caution: Bump in road
Metro region needs $8 billion to fix highways, but state piggy bank tapped out
By Jim Redden
The Portland Tribune, Feb 23, 2007

Highways in the Portland metropolitan area need nearly $8 billion in major improvements and repairs — but the state predicts it will have less than half the required money and does not have any plan for raising the rest.

According to figures compiled by the Oregon Department of Transportation, the work includes $1.5 billion for three additional lanes connecting Interstates 84 and 205, $1 billion as the state’s share of the I-5 replacement bridge, $600 million for the Sunrise Corridor, connecting the new city of Damascus to Oregon Highway 224, and $35 million to improve the Sunset Highway and Glencoe Road interchange.

The figures were requested by state Sen. Bruce Starr, R-Hillsboro, vice chairman of the Senate Business, Transportation and Workforce Development Committee.

He presented them Wednesday morning at a breakfast meeting on the 2007 Oregon Legislature sponsored by the Portland Business Alliance, the membership organization representing many downtown businesses.

Starr told the gathering at the downtown Governor Hotel that the current legislative session needs to do something to close the funding gap. He said the committee is studying whether the public will support raising taxes or fees to help pay for the work.

“We need to make sure that the package is something that can be sold to the public,” said Starr, who worked for passage of the first and second phases of the Oregon Investment Act that provided $3 billion for highway bridge repairs in the 2003 and 2005 legislative sessions.

The figures presented by Starr were drawn from ODOT’s State Highway Modernization Project, which identified the unfunded statewide total over the next five years at more than $9.3 billion.

Other major unfunded projects around the state include $330 million for the proposed Newberg-Dundee Bypass, $250 million to improve Oregon Highway 62 in Southern Oregon, $100 million to improve the connection between U.S. Highway 97 and U.S. Highway 20 in Central Oregon and $70 million for the reconstruction of the I-5/Beltline interchange in Lane County.

According to ODOT deputy director Doug Tindall, although the needed statewide work is estimated at $330 million a year over the next 25 years, only about $108 million a year is expected to be available, leaving an annual funding gap of around $222 million.

Not every project on the list has been approved for funding, however. Replacing the I-5 bridge between Portland and Vancouver, Wash., is still in the planning stage.

Although the cost of the so-called Columbia River Crossing currently is estimated at between $2 billion and $6 billion, the Metro Council and Clark County Commission have indicated an interest in studying a smaller supplemental bridge that could carry mass transit and local motor vehicle traffic between the two states.

Many of the figures provided to Starr also were preliminary and subject to change, based on engineering designs.

The figures presented by Starr do not include city street projects, such as the million of dollars worth of new and improved roads planned for the South Waterfront-development or the inner eastside Portland Streetcar extension.

Nor do they include any of the street planning reforms being considered by Metro for the updated Regional Transportation Plan scheduled to be approved next year, including the proposed street grid system suggested for all urban areas in the tricounty region.

jimredden@portlandtribune.com
http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=117218474500045800

[tworivers]

Condensed from bikeportland.org:

The city of Portland has been chosen to host the 2008 Towards Carfree Cities conference. The conference is a project of the World Carfree Network and it aims to “bring together people who are promoting practical alternatives to car dependence.”

Portland will be the first U.S. city to ever hold the conference.

Past conferences have been held in Lyon, Timisoara (Romania), Prague, Berlin, Budapest and Bogota. The 2007 conference will be held in Istanbul, Turkey.

In the official announcement, Randall Ghent of the World Carfree Network listed several factors that influenced their decision to pick Portland. Among them were, “that Portland is a very dynamic city with a lot of inspiration and support to offer the conference, and in addition the ideas of the conference have a high probability of being applied there.”

[65MAX]

Hmmm, I wonder why they didn't pick Houston....

[mcbaby]

http://www.worldcarfree.net/conference/

[edgepdx]

Time to go to Prague and brag about being from Portland! Wonder if anyone over there will buy me a beer? =D

Probably, my G.F. was in Plzen a few years ago and they had a plaque in the middle of town commemorating the sale of the streetcars to Portland. They're very proud to broken into the US market with the Portland streetcars.

[zilfondel]

http://www.nc3d.com/projects/southnorth/newlands133.jpg

[tworivers]

^^^ They have some other renderings on that site too, if I remember correctly. One that mirrors the Marquam design. Which would be folly because we're going to be tearing that motherfucker down.

When they do build the Caruthers, it probably won't be at Caruthers, but farther down, closer to South Waterfront, right? I imagine that will be coordinated in some way with the new OHSU campus. At the rate the city is moving at rebuildng our rail system, that will probably be around 2014.

[zilfondel]

Well, perhaps not. I kind of like this rendering, and their proposals (particularly plan C) on this website (http://www.riverfrontforpeople.org/). Particularly when it converts the existing Marquam bridge to a park/observation restaurant and the new Caruthers transit-only bridge to a multi-modal connection between Riverplace and SE Division.

http://www.riverfrontforpeople.org/gallery/vision3.jpg

Plan C (http://www.riverfrontforpeople.org/vision/optionc.html):

http://www.riverfrontforpeople.org/vision/freewayc.jpg

edit: this plan would also be by far the least expensive option in turning the Central Eastside into a nice place to be... which is what the whole 'development oriented transit' bullshit phrase is about.

[Dougall5505]

that bridge is the ugliest thing I have ever seen! It should cross the river closer to the river district so it stops between the new OHSU campous and the river district condos

[tworivers]

I like that Riverfront for People site, too. It makes so much sense, though, that it will probably never happen. For one thing, it would be cheaper to fix up 405/top parts of it/remove I-5 from the eastbank entirely, than tunnel/bury the freeway from the west bank to the Rose Quarter (still the tracks to consider burying though). I love the bridge fragment observation deck. What a monument to the folly of car culture.

[Dougall5505]

can you post the site where you found that rendering?

[tworivers]

http://www.nc3d.com/gallery/southnorthlightrail

[pdxman]

Can you imagine if all the I-5 traffic were to be rerouted onto 405 permanently? It would be a giant mess...26 is always backed up and that interchange is horrible. I can only imagine if you added I-5 traffic to that how quickly it would turn ugly--besides theres no room to expand 405 anyways. I say just bury the 5 on the east side.
I'm also starting to side with the non-$6 billion ideas for the CRC. I wonder if its possible to create a freight corridor on one of the existing crossings between portland and vancouver? That way freight wouldn't get clogged up with all the other motorists.

[Dougall5505]

this one is nice but I think the city would go for something a little less expensive looking.
http://www.nc3d.com/albums/southnorthlightrail/newlands129.sized.jpg
btw wouldn't it be cool to have the tram continue on to a station on the eastbank. that might be a little impratical
and what is that blue church looking house in the middle of the vacant land?

[zilfondel]

I'm also starting to side with the non-$6 billion ideas for the CRC. I wonder if its possible to create a freight corridor on one of the existing crossings between portland and vancouver? That way freight wouldn't get clogged up with all the other motorists.

You mean truck freight? How's this?

St John's - take Lombard East, turn left on Interstate, continue north onto the new Interstate/Haydn Island/Vancouver Bridge.

NoPo Columbia Slough Industrial area - head west on NE Columbia, again hit Interstate, continue N on a new Interstate bridge.

Both Bridges could be built almost side-by-side, making it a straight shot to the 'Couv with the MAX.

Lombard and Columbia, I believe, are both PDOT dedicated freight routes, and have very little congestion.

[pdxman]

Hmm, so this involves a new bridge right? ^^^ But right now, the freight gets stuck with all the other I-5 traffic correct?

[zilfondel]

Part of the equation is how far are people and freight driving? Just across the river to the industrial parks on the Columbia river? Why the heck do they need to be on the freeway then? Same for commuters...

As in most transport corridors, most of the traffic is local.

[bvpcvm]

When they do build the Caruthers, it probably won't be at Caruthers, but farther down, closer to South Waterfront, right? I imagine that will be coordinated in some way with the new OHSU campus. At the rate the city is moving at rebuildng our rail system, that will probably be around 2014.

I've been thinking about this lately, and I think building the "Caruthers" bridge down by SOWA is the wrong approach. First of all, any further south and it's very difficult to connect back with the route along McLoughlin. Maybe someone has issues with the McLoughlin route itself, but it seems like the obvious place to go. Secondly, even though I rarely cross the river to the east side, I think the neighborhoods in SE deserve LRT, given that they've supported it for years. It's no more a political decision, in my opinion, to "reward" SE with LRT than it is to serve SOWA with LRT. Thirdly, crossing anywhere south of Caruthers means a route running south of Powell, which effectively cuts off any pedestrian access from the neighborhoods north of there.

It'll be hard to escape the political pressure to extend LRT to SOWA, though, so what ought to be done is to serve it with the Barbur line. Taking a quick glance, it appears that there's room next to I-5, cutting under the tram. The tracks would probably have to cross over I-5 to return to Barbur - or perhaps a short tunnel would work. And you'd get LRT, Streetcar and Tram all in one SOWA transit center. Sure, it would be a good decade (at least) before service began, but SOWA's far from built out.

[65MAX]

I've been thinking about this lately, and I think building the "Caruthers" bridge down by SOWA is the wrong approach. First of all, any further south and it's very difficult to connect back with the route along McLoughlin. Maybe someone has issues with the McLoughlin route itself, but it seems like the obvious place to go. Secondly, even though I rarely cross the river to the east side, I think the neighborhoods in SE deserve LRT, given that they've supported it for years. It's no more a political decision, in my opinion, to "reward" SE with LRT than it is to serve SOWA with LRT. Thirdly, crossing anywhere south of Caruthers means a route running south of Powell, which effectively cuts off any pedestrian access from the neighborhoods north of there.

It'll be hard to escape the political pressure to extend LRT to SOWA, though, so what ought to be done is to serve it with the Barbur line. Taking a quick glance, it appears that there's room next to I-5, cutting under the tram. The tracks would probably have to cross over I-5 to return to Barbur - or perhaps a short tunnel would work. And you'd get LRT, Streetcar and Tram all in one SOWA transit center. Sure, it would be a good decade (at least) before service began, but SOWA's far from built out.

I agree that the new bridge needs to serve inner SE, including the Central Eastside and OMSI. I don't think that MAX running parallel to the SoWa streetcar is a good choice though. Streetcar capacity can be increased with shorter headways. Plus, I don't think the Tram has the capacity to carry all transit riders between a new MAX station at Gibbs/I-5 and Pill Hill. However, if Barbur MAX has a station just south of the YMCA, a high-capacity inclined elevator (funicular) through the trees up to the upper Tram station would be a much cheaper alternative than either A) tunneling under OHSU ala Washington Park or B) detouring over to I-5/Gibbs then tunneling back to Barbur. Plus, the funicular would be another way for commuters and tourists to enjoy the view.

[Dougall5505]

New downtown signs have some glitches
Posted by Fred Leeson February 28, 2007 14:28PM
Categories: Breaking News, Portland
These errors are definitely not "willkommen."

The new pedestrian signs intended to help folks find their way around downtown Portland have a few glitches. An alert resident (and reliable Internet translation site) says the ones that say "wilkommen," if intended for Germans, ought to say "willkommen."

The sign at Northwest 11th Avenue and Couch Street points people looking for the Multnomah County Library east on Couch rather than south on 11th. Folks who follow it will wind up in the Willamette River, not at the library. And a sign at Northwest Fourth Avenue and Everett Street sends pedestrians south on Fourth to find MAX. They'll get there after 10 blocks. But they'd get there in three if the arrow pointed east on Everett.

Irene Bowers, a senior project manager at the Portland Development Commission, takes the news philosophically. "There are always going to be hiccups," she says.

[NJD]

I didn't quite know where to post this, but the Thoreau Institute is one of the most slanderous media groups in the Northwest and has been mentioned in this forum time and time again... here is a little insight into its real intentions:

Randal O'Toole's "Thoreau Institute":
Oil, Asphalt, and Pipeline Money Feed an Extremist Attack on Urban Planning and Public Transit

Produced by the Light Rail Now! Publication Team
January 2007

Randal O'Toole's self-styled "Thoreau Institute" lies at the core of his ferocious jihad against urban planning, Smart Growth, New Urbanism, public transport, and rail transit (a jihad that he also promotes through spinoffs and front groups such as his American Dream Coalition"). So, just what – and whom – does the Thoreau Institute represent?

Media Transparency – which exposes what amounts to "an interconnected web of conservative organizations" funded by far-right "philanthropies" (almost univerally opposed to public transport and rail transit) – provides some answers by revealing the primary funding sources of O'Toole's outfit.

According to Media Transparency's research, O'Toole's Thoreau Institute, based in Oak Grove, Oregon, received major grants totalling $ 321,100 between 1997-2005. Here's a tabulation of the organization's main funding sources in that period.

12/31/2005
$50,000
Sarah Scaife Foundation
01/01/2002
$50,000
Sarah Scaife Foundation
01/01/2002
$10,000
Charlotte and Walter Kohler Charitable Trust
01/01/2001
$50,000
Sarah Scaife Foundation
01/01/1999
$50,000
Sarah Scaife Foundation
01/01/1999
$10,000
Charlotte and Walter Kohler Charitable Trust
01/01/1998
$50,000
Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation
11/11/1997
$22,550
The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.
08/11/1997
$22,550
The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.
04/07/1997
$3,000
The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.
04/07/1997
$3,000
The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.

Who are these donors? Media Transparency has provided information on three out of the four (no information was available on the Kohler Charitable Trust). The Light Rail Now Project has supplemented with additional information, where appropriate.

Sarah Mellon Scaife Foundation – This is "a foundation financed by the Mellon industrial, oil and banking fortune", according to Media Transparency.

At one time, its largest single holding was stock in Gulf Oil Corporation. It was estimated some years ago to be a $200 million foundation. It became active in supporting conservative causes in 1973, when Richard Mellon Scaife became chairman. Since then, Scaife has been a leading financier of New Right causes.

Charles G. Koch Foundation – This foundation is deeply rooted in the petroleum and petrochemical industries. According to Media Transparency,

David and Charles Koch, sons of the ultraconservative founder of Koch Industries, Fred Koch, direct the three Koch family foundations: the Charles G. Koch Foundation, the David H. Koch Charitable Foundation, and the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation. David and Charles control Koch Industries, the second-largest privately owned company and the largest privately owned energy company in the nation; they have a combined net worth of approximately $4 billion, placing them among the top 50 wealthiest individuals in the country and among the top 100 wealthiest individuals in the world in 2003, according to Forbes.

Koch Industries, Inc. has primarily been involved in petroleum and chemicals. Its website boasts that...

Koch companies have been involved in the petroleum business since 1940, growing refining capacity more than 80-fold in six decades. Today, the Flint Hills Resources group of businesses, subsidiaries of Koch Industries, are engaged in petroleum refining, chemicals and lube oil production, crude oil supply and trading, and wholesale marketing and trading of fuel oil, base oils, gasoline, petrochemicals, chemical intermediates, asphalt and other products. A subsidiary of Koch Supply & Trading also produces jet fuel, gas oil, naphtha and residual fuel in Europe.
[...]

As a result of Flint Hills Resources' various interests in production facilities in the petroleum chain, the company has expanded its marketing capability regularly to create value for customers. An example of that expansion is the 2003 entry into the base lube oil business following the purchase of a half-interest in Louisiana- based Excel Paralubes. The lube oil business is a natural extension of Flint Hills Resources, and has introduced it to a new customer base. The company's products are used in motor oil, agriculture oils and marine oils, among others.

In 2005, Flint Hills Resources began operating a system of strategically located asphalt terminals, formerly owned by Koch Materials Company, to market product from the Minnesota refinery. This refinery's production of asphalt sparked Koch companies' 1979 entry into asphalt marketing.

Koch further emphasizes its roots in the oil. gas, and chemical pipeline industry:

As part of a 1946 refining acquisition, Koch Industries' predecessor company acquired a small crude oil pipeline system in southwestern Oklahoma. Over the years, Koch companies have bought or built and sold pipeline systems transporting crude oil and refined products, as well as natural gas, natural gas liquids and anhydrous ammonia. Today, Koch Pipeline Company, L.P. owns and operates pipelines carrying crude oil, refined products and natural gas liquids.

Major donors to Randal O'Toole's anti-transit, pro-sprawl campaign stand to gain from continuing overwhelming dependency on motor vehicle mobility, and from sprawl development which reinforces that dependency. Through its involvement in asphalt production, Koch Industries profits from highway construction, such as this jumble of freeway ramps and bridges in Milwaukee.
[Photo: Congress for the New Urbanism]


Media Transparency provides the following additional information with regard to the Koch family's political ideology and "charitable" investment policies:

Following in the footsteps of their father, a member of the John Birch Society, the Kochs clearly have an ultra-conservative bent. Charles Koch founded the Cato Institute, and David Koch co-founded Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) [now FreedomWorks], where he serves as chairman of the board of directors. David also serves on the board of the Cato Institute. The Koch foundations make substantial annual contributions to these organizations (more than $12 million to each between 1985 and 2002) as well as to other influential conservative think tanks, advocacy groups, media organizations, academic institutes and legal organizations, thus participating in every level of the policy process. Their total conservative policy giving exceeded $20 million between 1999 and 2001. As reflected in their creation and funding of Cato and CSE, most of their contributions go to support organizations and groups advancing libertarian theory, privatization, entrepreneurship and free enterprise. David Koch even ran for president as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1980. In describing his foundation's contributions, he states, "My overall concept is to minimize the role of government and to maximize the role of private economy and to maximize personal freedoms."

The brothers' libertarian and free-market orientation comes as no surprise, given their ownership of Koch Industries, an oil and gas corporation.

The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc. – According to Media Transparency, "With $516 million in assets1 (2004), the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation of Milwaukee, Wisconsin is the country's largest and most influential right-wing foundation."

As of the end of 2004, it was giving away more than $33 million a year. Its financial resources, its clear political agenda, and its extensive national network of contacts and collaborators in political, academic and media circles has allowed it to exert an important influence on key issues of public policy. While its targets range from affirmative action to social security, it has seen its greatest successes in the areas of welfare "reform" and attempts to privatize public education through the promotion of school vouchers.

More than three years ago, as our article Exposing Those Far-Right Propaganda "Think Tanks" pointed out, "Throughout the USA, public transportation is virtually under siege" – calling attention to "a veritable barrage of misinformation, directed especially against rail transit services and proposals, coming from so-called "think tanks" with warm and fuzzy "heartland"-style or "academic"-redolent names...."

As our article continued,

Despite their "grassroots" pretenses, these groups' high intensity of pricey activities belie heavily endowed bank accounts: a steady stream of "surveys", supposedly erudite research projects and reports, cash channelled into local anti-transit and anti-New Urbanism organizing efforts, and visits by national "hired gun" transit assassins like Wendell Cox and Randal O'Toole.

Gradually, with more and more information coming to light, all the dots are being connected. And what's becoming clearer and clearer is that the efforts to roadblock the development of rail transit and Smart Growth policies are directly linked to powerful, extremely wealthy interest groups that stand to profit substantially from thwarting rail transit and other major public transport investments and from maintaining dependency on private motor vehicle transport and suburban sprawl land development patterns in perpetuity.

[Urbanpdx]

If they added up all the money that the Thoreau Institute has taken
from left-wing foundations (Shalon, Tides, Bullitt, Hewlett, to name
a few), what would they conclude? The former director of the Bullitt
Foundation (one of the most liberal foundations in Washington state)
is also one of the two or three leading light-rail opponents in
Seattle. Hmm, sounds like a conspiracy!

[zilfondel]

Urbanism/Suburban "proponents" do not always fall along traditional conservative/liberal party lines.

I would actually be curious to see your references to illustrate that "leftie" or "pinkie" groups are funding anti-transit/urban "think tank" organizations.

However, it is true that many very conservative groups and individuals are backed by oil and gas, automobile, and road-building interests and consortiums. When they oppose public mass transit, as they did in the 50's - and today - it is indeed termed a "conspiracy."

Main Entry: con·spir·a·cy (http://webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)
Pronunciation: k&n-'spir-&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle English conspiracie, from Latin conspirare
1 : the act of conspiring together
2 a : an agreement among conspirators b : a group of conspirators
synonym see PLOT

[Urbanpdx]

Here is a nice group of conspirators:

Supporters of MAX Light Rail in 1996

The building of a north-south light rail system was voted on in 1996. Here is a list of big contributors ($5000 and over) who were in favor of building light rail. Their contributions totaled $980,000 . (All pro-rail contributions totaled over $1,156,340.)

The light rail opponents spent about $110,000 and won.


NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR AMOUNT Connection

Portland General Electric $52,500 Sells Electricity
Pacific Power $52,500 Sells Electricity
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $50,640 Wiring the system
Fred Meyer $50.000
International Union of Operating Engineers $44,710
U.S. Bancorp $35,000 Sells bonds
First Interstate Bank $30,000 Sells bonds
Siemens Duewag Corporation $30,000 Makes rail car components
Oregon Public Employees Union $27,400 Will operate trains
Legacy Health $25,000
Portland Trail Blazers $22,750
Local Union Legal Foundation $20,000
Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas $20,000 Designs & builds rail lines
Bridge Structural, & Ornamental Iron Workers $17,400 Construct the system
Sheet Metal Workers $16,350 Construct the system
Bank of America $15,000 Sells bonds
Intel Corporation $15,000
Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen $14,000 Construct the system
LTK Engineering Services $13,400 Engineering
BRW Inc. $12,500
Middleton & Company $12,000
Greenbriar Company $10,000
Tom Walsh $10,000 Principal in Construction Company
Zummer Grinnel Frasca Partnership $10,000
Goldman Sachs & G.) $10,000 Finance
Nike, Inc $10,000
Kiewit Pacific $10,000 Construction company
Morse Brothers $10,000
Union Pacific Railroad $10,000
Hanley Industrial properties $10,000
Bombardiere Corporation $10,000 Builds trains
City Center Parking $10,000
Obie Outdoor Advertising $10,000
OTAK Architects $10,000 engineering and designs TODs and other infrastructure
Standard Insurance $10,000
U.S. West Communications $10,000
United Infrastructure $10,000
Amalgamated Transit Union $8,100
Cement Masons $7,650 Builds the system
Hoffman Corporation $7,500 Contractor
CH2M Hill $6,000 Engineering
O'Brien Kreizberg $5,600
James Furman & Co- $5,000
Dames & Moore $5,000
Providence Health Systems $5,000
Slayden Construction $5,000
Kaiser Permanente $5,000
David Evans & Associates $5,000 Engineering, consulting
Class PAC $5,000
CFI Pro Services $5,000
Davis, Wright, Tremaine $5,000 Lawyers
NW Natural Gas Co- $5,000 Gas for electricity
Zidell, Inc- $5,000
Stoel, Rives, Boley, Jones, & Gray $5,000 Lawyers
Yeon Properties $5,000
Pacific Gas Transmission $5,000 Gas for Electricity
AT & T Wireless $5,000
Block 216 Partners $5,000
Keylorp Management $5,000
------------
Total, Big Money Contributions over $5,000 $884,800
Percentage of All Contributions 76.5%
Total, Contributions over $1,000 $980,640
Percentage of All Contributions 84.8%
Total, All Contributions $1,156,340

[alexjon]

Those people are my friends, and I love them all! :)

[zilfondel]

difference in constant rhetoric and supporting an individual project, you know.

[edgepdx]

Here is a nice group of conspirators:

Supporters of MAX Light Rail in 1996



From what I can tell this list mainly represents local business interests, who would, wait ... benefit from light rail. As apposed to Exxon Mobile or GM who would benefit from more freeways. Call me crazy but I feel much better about the light rail group than the oil and auto folks.

[360Rich]

It must be exhausting looking for the negative and the hidden agenda all of the time.

[360Rich]

Wash. Co. getting Ore.'s first-ever commuter rail

12:20 PM PST on Friday, March 2, 2007

By kgw.com and KGW Staff

WILSONVILLE, Ore. -- Friday morning, local leaders broke ground on Oregon's first commuter rail line -- Tri-Met's Washington County commuter rail.

Officials at the ground-breaking event described it as a major step in adding another transportation option in our region.

Tri-Met's general manager, Fred Hansen, said Oregon's first commuter rail line will be unique, because instead of traveling to a major city, the trains will average 37 miles an hour from Wilsonville to Beaverton, with stops in Tualatin, Tigard and Washington Square Mall.

"More and more of our trips aren't going into and out of downtown Portland, they're moving from one town center to another,” Hansen said.

At a cost of more than $117-million, KGW wanted to know whether the Tri-Met's trains are cost effective, considering only 3,000-4,000 riders a day are expected to use the rail line by 2020.

"I think it will grow over time, but this is really a first installment in another important transportation option for this region,” Hansen said.

And with congestion growing worse in the Portland area, some say the commuter rail line can't get built quickly enough.

The trains are scheduled to start running during the morning and afternoon rush hours in September of 2008.

The cost of fare hasn’t been decided yet.

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_030207_news_commuter_rail_.1106dcaa.html

[65MAX]

It must be exhausting looking for the negative and the hidden agenda all of the time.

Hell, it's exhausting just READING that garbage. :koko:

[65MAX]

Wash. Co. getting Ore.'s first-ever commuter rail

12:20 PM PST on Friday, March 2, 2007

By kgw.com and KGW Staff

WILSONVILLE, Ore. -- Friday morning, local leaders broke ground on Oregon's first commuter rail line -- Tri-Met's Washington County commuter rail.

Um, haven't they been under construction for a couple of months now? Way to be on top of things, KGW.

[pdxman]

I hate to be negative, but imo the commuter rail project is a waste of money. I would have rather seen that money used for buying new buses, one of the many planned streetcar lines, or towards another inner max line. That line is going to run through one of the least transit friendly areas in the metro area. I doubt people in tualatin are going to pay to ride on a train that goes an average of 41 mph just to get to beaverton. 5 stops in only 15 miles of line?? So it only goes 40 mph AND has to stop every 3 miles? Good luck trying to get people to ride this. Now, if they had planned this like the FrontRunner in utah where the line is 50 miles long and the cars average 80! mph then i could see the validity of this. Plus, WCCR is only single-tracked and is shared with freight rail. Ugh, what a waste.

[Dougall5505]

its not goona work just because you won't ride it. You have to think of the interests of other people not just yourself

[pdxman]

Finally! An opinion/emotion out dougall :)

[Dougall5505]

Im not a argurer im a picture taker! :cool:

[pdxman]

Haha and a good one too!

[South-by-West]

pdxman, ever rode on the 76? It's one of the next lines to get frequent service. I think the demand for a high-capacity rail line along the 217 corridor is there. Especially with more and more people moving into the outer SW suburbs.

[Drmyeyes]

pdxman, you want to see something that will...well, I should just say, that the first overpass north of Canyon Rd straddling 217 gives a remarkable show everday between about 3-5:30pm. Well, thats when I see it...there is probably other busy times too. From this overpass, you can see way down the road 2-3 miles, and it seems every day its the same...solid traffic that barely moves.

I got a feeling the commuter rail is going to be very successful. A lot of those people stuck behind a car on the freeway might prefer to be cruising along in a smooth running train. Wonder where the Beaverton station will be. Makes sense that western bound people would be happy to jump from the commuter rail to light rail west or east for that matter.

[bvpcvm]

PDXMan, you're mischaracterizing the service. The average speed is around 40 but the top speed (the speed between stations) is 60. What's more, that rail line continues south from Wilsonville straight to Salem. Someday, it will go there. And the line's being double-tracked for this project.

I do agree though that it would make sense to put LRT in that corridor, though not along that particular route.

[pdxman]

I understand that the 217 corridor is very busy and congested and i'm not advocating widening the freeway or anything like that. I am all in favor of expanding transit in that area but the current commuter rail plan just doesn't cut it IMO. The thing that gets me ( i stand corrected) is the average speed of 37 mph. 37! They're spending 117 million dollars on a rail line that goes only 14 miles and does 37 mph. It boggles the mind. I can understand why it will only run during peak travel times because in the off hours you can drive more than twice as fast on the freeway. The top speed on the train is 60 mph, so its still slower than a car. In order to get the general public to ride some thing like this, and ride it often, it HAS to go faster than freeway speeds. It just seems too slow to me. I'm not opposed to commuter rail, but i am questioning this project. It just seems like the beaverton-wilsonville corrider is too short for something like commuter rail. I believe all that money could be better spent on more buses or perhaps a BRT system for that corridor. That said theres no turning back now, so lets hope its extremely successful.
Here's the trimet fact sheet: http://www.trimet.org/pdfs/commuterrail/WCCR_Fact_Sheet_02-23-07.pdf

[65MAX]

pdxman, you want to see something that will...well, I should just say, that the first overpass north of Canyon Rd straddling 217 gives a remarkable show everday between about 3-5:30pm. Well, thats when I see it...there is probably other busy times too. From this overpass, you can see way down the road 2-3 miles, and it seems every day its the same...solid traffic that barely moves.

I got a feeling the commuter rail is going to be very successful. A lot of those people stuck behind a car on the freeway might prefer to be cruising along in a smooth running train. Wonder where the Beaverton station will be. Makes sense that western bound people would be happy to jump from the commuter rail to light rail west or east for that matter.

Agreed Drmyeyes. 217 is a parking lot during rush hours. I also think this is going to be more popular than people imagined. And actually, there is a significant portion of this line that will be double tracked. This could easily be upgraded to full-time service with 30 minute frequencies once the demand materializes (and it will). Functionally, it could operate as an extension of the red line since the Beaverton TC terminus is right next to (and parallel to) the existing MAX station. I have a rendering of it somewhere, I'll see if I can dig it up.

Oh, and this project was completely driven by Washington County and the cities it serves, this wasn't an immediate priority for Metro or Trimet. So saying Trimet and Metro shouldn't have pushed this project doesn't really make much sense.

[pdxman]

I knew someone would post while i was typing! Are you sure about the double tracking bvpcvm? To my knowledge its single-tracked with added pullouts for passing. In the photo gallery section on trimets website it has a photo of the new tracks and its only single tracked. But anyways...

[65MAX]

Not the whole length will be double tracked, but a lot of it will be. You can already see some of the new double tracking along 217 north of Washington Square. Also, this line could easily be upgraded to Lightrail-like service with direct connections to MAX at Beaverton TC.

[pdxman]

Light rail makes much more sense...Infact, i'm surprised they didn't choose that. They had everything ready for it with the connection to the Beaverton TC and the tracks and the existing LRT cars, i'm sure they could have squeezed a few more dollars out of the feds to make it happen.

[bvpcvm]

I think I read somewhere that it would have cost hundreds of millions more. I don't know why for sure, but I presume LRT wouldn't have followed the railroad nearly as closely, so it would probably include a few flyovers (say, from 217 to the Wash Sq transit center) and some street running, which would all, of course, get people closer to where they're going, but also cost more.

[65MAX]

I agree, this corridor can EASILY support lightrail frequencies. That's why I think this line will be much more popular than most people think. If freight service is ever removed from this line, the upgrade to lightrail would be relatively simple. The ROW and most of the tracks will already be there, just add a few more stations and electricity.

[zilfondel]

The reason they didn't run light rail vehicles down the tracks is because it is still used (and owned) by a freight rail company... and the FTA regulations require a massively heavy rail vehicle that won't crunch like a tin can if it gets at, say, 120 mph.

Of course, in Europe and Japan they mix lighter electric commuter rail vehicles with freight; they have implemented something long known to the auto industry as "crumple zones" in their rail vehicles. However, US regs require that any passenger train vehicle not deform at all in the case of a crash... which is why there is only ONE diesel multiple unit mfgr in the world that can meet US safety specs*: the hideously ugly "colorado railcar (http://www.coloradorailcar.com/)."

Disclaimer: visiting colorad railcar's website may cause, to the design oriented, nauseau, fainting, or temporary blackouts. We recommend you reduce your browser window size or set your screen resolution to a higher level to minimize the amount of exposure. Do not view for longer than 3 minutes a time, or else contact your optometrist.

This is the equivalent DMU/EMU commuter trainset as manufactured by Siemens:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/BDZ-Siemens-Sofia-gruev.JPG
*apparently it may actually meet FTA specs, but not sure on it

[tworivers]

I've been thinking about this lately, and I think building the "Caruthers" bridge down by SOWA is the wrong approach. First of all, any further south and it's very difficult to connect back with the route along McLoughlin. Maybe someone has issues with the McLoughlin route itself, but it seems like the obvious place to go. Secondly, even though I rarely cross the river to the east side, I think the neighborhoods in SE deserve LRT, given that they've supported it for years. It's no more a political decision, in my opinion, to "reward" SE with LRT than it is to serve SOWA with LRT. Thirdly, crossing anywhere south of Caruthers means a route running south of Powell, which effectively cuts off any pedestrian access from the neighborhoods north of there.

I was envisioning a bridge landing right at the mid-point of the OHSU campus (any farther south and I agree). I assume there will be future streetcar stations in that vicinity, and it would be a somewhat better connection to S Waterfront, many years before a Barbur line. It looks like just as much of a straight shot accross the river to Caruthers as a bridge coming accross from under the Marquam. (Not sure how it would connect with the end of the transit mall at Jackson St, though, or how the streetcar/MAX connection would work.) I mis-spoke when I said "When they do build the Caruthers, it probably won't be at Caruthers", because I do think the bridge should land there on the eastside to meet up with the streetcar, give inner SE MAX access, and connect with McLoughlin. I know this map is old, but it gives a good idea of what I mean:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/184/411037798_a3ae36ca0c_o.jpg

I hope the pedestrian and bike facilities are stellar, to make up for the botched job ODOT did on the Ross Island a few years back. This would be a great connection between all the new dvlpt and the Springwater Corridor and SE in general.

[WonderlandPark]

Disclaimer: visiting colorad railcar's website may cause, to the design oriented, nauseau, fainting, or temporary blackouts. We recommend you reduce your browser window size or set your screen resolution to a higher level to minimize the amount of exposure. Do not view for longer than 3 minutes a time, or else contact your optometrist.

:haha: :haha: :haha:

[edgepdx]

Disclaimer: visiting colorad railcar's website may cause, to the design oriented, nauseau, fainting, or temporary blackouts. We recommend you reduce your browser window size or set your screen resolution to a higher level to minimize the amount of exposure. Do not view for longer than 3 minutes a time, or else contact your optometrist.

:haha: That thing looks like a tour bus for a 80's hair metal band. Is that what they're going to run on the Washington Co. line?

[MarkDaMan]

Commuter rail project breaks ground in Wilsonville
Daily Journal of Commerce
by Libby Tucker
03/05/2007


State representatives and transportation officials on Friday broke ground on the first of five commuter rail stations to be built for the new Washington County Commuter Rail project.

The 14.7-mile line that will extend south from Beaverton to Wilsonville has been 10 years in the making, said Fred Hansen, TriMet director, but it’s only the beginning of a much larger effort to introduce passenger rail on freight lines throughout the state.

The Oregon Department of Transportation has set aside $2 million in its 2007-2009 budget for a comprehensive statewide study of commuter rail options, Hansen said.

And momentum is growing behind House Bill 2472, which would create a task force to study extending the Washington County line farther south along the Interstate 5 corridor to Salem.

“The idea has taken hold in Salem ... where there is now a bill to study the idea of taking the train all the way to Salem,” said Rep. Jerry Krummel (R-Wilsonville).

“I see this as just the beginning and I believe we can build on the success this line will have to support more lines like it in the valley in the future,” Krummel said.

Last fall 14 miles of freight rail line, owned by Portland & Western Railroad, were rebuilt in preparation for the passenger trains.

General contractor Stacy and Witbeck began construction on the Wilsonville station and 400-space park-and-ride area at the southern terminus of the new line Friday. The commuter rail platform will have a 40-foot-long shelter with wind screens, a scored concrete plaza with trees, furnishings and artwork.

Once the line is completed in September 2008, travel time between Beaverton and Wilsonville will be 27 minutes and connect with “Blue” and “Red” MAX light-rail lines to Hillsboro and Portland.

The Washington County Commuter Rail project is one of five commuter rail projects to receive federal funding this year. Upon completion, the line will be the first suburb-to-suburb commuter rail service in the nation.

“This region understands a good transit system is critical for freeing up highways for freight,” said Sen. Rod Monroe (D-Portland). “Wilsonville is jobs rich. ... The train will be full both ways ... morning and afternoon. That is absolutely unique.”
http://www.djc-or.com/viewStory.cfm?recid=29008&userID=1

[zilfondel]

:haha: That thing looks like a tour bus for a 80's hair metal band. Is that what they're going to run on the Washington Co. line?

Yep, albeit with a different paint job. :(

BTW, here is kind of where the MAX will probably run to make the jump to Caruthers... you get a stop at Riverplace and one next to OMSI, which is the most direct - and fastest - route you can have. Note that it's only a five minute walk from SOWA; which will also be connected by the Streetcar. Nothing but a freeway and lots of concrete along the route:

http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/3512/sillybridgehl4.jpg

And here is the official map:

http://trimet.org/images/projects/southcorridormap.gif

[NJD]

the official alignment:
http://images.tribe.net/tribe/upload/photo/883/0a9/8830a9da-aee2-4f7a-8771-4a9de3bf1842

[zilfondel]

^^^ I stand corrected. That thing is naaaasty! WTF are they thinking, putting an elevated structure through the middle of the triple towers and over the Harrison connector?!

What is wrong with Trimet? Every single time they choose to run the MAX down the absolute slowest route possible! Whereas they could bypass ALL of the street traffic from PSU to Riverplace, they want to run it on a super-steep graded Lincoln street. And it's not like this area is lacking in rail transit... the streetcar runs 2-3 blocks to the north on Montgomery, with 3 stops within 3 blocks!!! I'm guessing this will add another 3-4 minutes on MAX journeys from PSU to OMSI.

I like my route better. =P

edit*

all is not lost:

http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/3037/hmmry4.jpg

[Dougall5505]

why not bury it under that hill and have it rise back above ground at lincoln avenue?. It would cost more but it would greatly reduce the time and visual impact on its neighbors.

[tworivers]

I like my route better. =P

Your route makes a lot more sense, no doubt. I'm curious what Adams and crew could possibly be thinking in terms of servicing South Waterfront more directly vs. meeting up with the eastside streetcar at OMSI.

Tunneling, I'm sure, would be considered way too expensive, particularly when added to the bridge cost.

[pdxstreetcar]

the elevated portion would be short and is just to have a more gradual grade where the steep hillside is, note the yellow in the map. its at grade going down lincoln (which now has a center median) thru south auditorium. it just takes out one small building at the foot of lincoln. if it goes via 405 it pretty much misses the south auditorium and riverplace.

[NJD]

yes, the elevated part would be very short, and only one small 60's era building would be razed. I think this is a great route; low impact and much lower cost than the 405 route. Here is that PDC suggested route:
http://images.tribe.net/tribe/upload/photo/853/32e/85332e8a-5741-4378-ae94-1380eb7c0cfb

[tworivers]

Why do you all think that South Auditorium needs a MAX station? I just don't immediately see the reasoning. I'm much more partial to the idea of there not being a station between Riverplace and PSU.

[pdxman]

You know trimet--put in as many stops as possible! Don't want to piss anyone off by not giving them a stop

[der Reisender]

i am a fan of running max along 405 from PSU to Riverplace too. Makes sense, there's room, and the streetcar provides local circulation where the line was originally intended to go. and for the end users, out in milwaukie and SE, it is nice to lose those stops that serve little purpose.

[South-by-West]

Yeah, no reason to keep putting stops in the South Auditorium district when the real purpose of this MAX line is to serve SE and Milwaukie.

[zilfondel]

The Riverplace stops [could] also close enough to transfer from the MAX to streetcar - just about a 350' walk.

With all the previous talk about a subway - and elimination of virtually all downtown stops to be consolidated to three: Pioneer, PSU, and Amtrak - it would make more sense for this segment to follow the same criteria. Would make it really easy for it to be connected to the subway system in the future, too, since you wouldn't have to build one along this segment.

[65MAX]

^^^^
Exactly, Max could run along 405 to connect with the end of the transit mall tracks, but later connected to a subway under Broadway. No need to tear up the mall tracks to build the subway. And who says you can't have a stop between the 1st and 4th Ave overpasses to serve the areas both north AND south of 405?

[65MAX]

With all the previous talk about a subway - and elimination of virtually all downtown stops to be consolidated to three: Pioneer, PSU, and Amtrak - it would make more sense for this segment to follow the same criteria.

I would say 4 stops;
Union Station/PO Site
Burnside
Pioneer Square/Perf Arts Center
PSU

[tworivers]

Dug this out of the Dec 06 Streetcar Advisory Committee mtg:

8. Milwaukie Light Rail
Richard Brandman will provide the Committee an update on the Milwaukie light rail project in January or February. There is significant misunderstanding and misinformation regarding this project. There is no stated intent or goal to move the planned bridge south. Project timeframe is 2014 or 2015.

Sounds like they've had some concern about moving the bridge, too. The main thing that jumped out at me, though, was the timeframe. That's a 4 or 5 year gap between project construction. We could see Caruthers bridge construction midway through Obama's second term...

[pdxman]

^^^Once again the Portland Process rears its ugly head. 2014???

[MitchE]

^^^Once again the Portland Process rears its ugly head. 2014???

2014 is actually pretty quick. Before any construction starts they have to finish the supplemental EIS. (about 1-2 years). Then get local and federal approvals - $$ - (1-2 years), then construction and testing will take 2-3 years. We are up to 2014 at this point.

[tworivers]

I was assuming that the beginning of construction was being forecasted for 2014, which sounded like a long time to me. Having the Milwaukie MAX online in 2014 sounds more reasonable, and in keeping with the pace of projects so far.

I wouldn't have chalked anything involving this timeframe up to the "Portland process" (something rightfully celebrated by the likes of Laurie Olin, though it can be painfully tedious at times), given the massive bureaucratic hurdles the Feds make us go through for transit funding, not to mention the significant budget issues Trimet is facing.

[pdxstreetcar]

Portland may spend a lot of time studying stuff but its no more than any other government. The difference of course is that Portland actually follows through and gets it done or built (with only a few exceptions: FS1). This is particularly evident with the South Waterfront, transit projects and the tram. Other cities may have a vision for ambitious projects like those but how many actually commit to building them? Even Multnomah County studies things to death and little comes of those, theyve known the bridge needed replacement for decades, do we actually think the Sellwood bridge is going anywhere soon?

[MitchE]

According to Multnomah County construction could start at the end of 2008

http://www.sellwoodbridge.org/img/decisionProcess.jpg