Portland Transit [Archive] - Page 11

MarkDaMan

Mar 7, 2007, 4:25 PM

Milwaukie light rail gets back on track
by Libby Tucker
03/07/2007
Daily Journal of Commerce

MILWAUKIE – For the third time in nearly 10 years, the regional government Metro has revived its plans to build a light-rail line from Portland to Milwaukie.

Milwaukie residents have considered the second phase of TriMet's South Corridor proposal for the 6.5-mile alignment twice before, in 1998 and again in 2003. But the third time may be the charm, Milwaukie city councilor Joe Loomis said Monday in Milwaukie at the first public meeting commissioned by Metro for the proposal.

"Really, we're starting all over," Loomis said, "but I think we'll get it through this time."

Milwaukie residents in 1998 voted down a ballot measure for a $475 million funding package. The proposal was brought back and an alignment was approved by the city council in 2004, but plans stalled after businesses and residents opposed the alignment.

Metro is now restarting the project, beginning with an update of its environmental analysis, and will consider three major changes to the 2003 alignment. The analysis will study design, cost, land uses and travel time associated with the new line.

If approved, the project could be complete as early as 2014. It would connect an estimated 20,000 daily riders to the region's existing MAX light-rail system, according to Metro.

Included in the updated plan is a proposal that would link the new light-rail line with the Portland Streetcar and Portland Aerial Tram on the South Waterfront development. Such a plan would move the original alignment further south of the Marquam Bridge and closer to Oregon Health & Science University's Center for Health & Healing.

"When this was first studied, South Waterfront didn't exist," said Olivia Clark, executive director of TriMet, the regional transportation authority. The proposed new alignment, she said, "is reflecting changing times in terms of what's happening in development."

Milwaukie, too, has experienced change, with the development of its first high-density mixed-use projects, including the $14 million North Main Village redevelopment project and the proposed Milwaukie-Metro Town Center, near the downtown core.

"Everything has grown up around us and now the Milwaukie center is developing," said Jeff Klein, chairman of the Milwaukie Planning Commission and the Lewelling Neighborhood Association.

Metro has projected that Clackamas County's population will grow to more than 590,000 by 2025, an increase of 259 percent from 1970. And daily traffic volume along McLoughlin Boulevard, the main commuter route between Portland and Milwaukie, will increase by 73 percent over the same time period, according to Metro.

"We need to be proactive in transportation needs not for now but for 10 to 20 years from now," Klein said.

Other updates to the 2003 plan include a proposal to extend the line's terminus south of Lake Road, beyond downtown Milwaukie, to accommodate a larger park-and-ride lot and decrease traffic flow through downtown. And variations of the alignment through the north industrial area will also be considered in the new plan.

Unchanged from the 2003 alignment are plans to build nine to 10 new stations and a new bridge across the Willamette River that would carry the light-rail line and eventually complete an eastside streetcar loop.

"We're starting up where we left off," said David Aschenbrenner, a Milwaukie resident who served on a citizens' advisory committee in the last planning process. "A lot (of the plan) is the same as the last one."

TriMet has not yet secured funding for the Milwaukie light-rail line, however. The agency is considering a mixture of local, regional, state and federal funding sources, including $115 million in state lottery-backed bonds that were approved by the Legislature in 1991 for construction of the west side light rail but have not yet been issued. The bonds are set to retire in three years.

"But construction costs have so escalated since 1991, we're looking at asking for more money to cover construction," TriMet's Clark said. The new bond request could be somewhere in the neighborhood of $230 million, she said.

The Federal Transit Administration, which has agreed to fund 60 percent of the Interstate 205 MAX extension to Clackamas Town Center, may also make funds available for the Milwaukie project. But Portland must compete with other cities, including Denver and Phoenix, for federal transit dollars as light-rail projects become increasingly attractive nationwide, Clark said.

The Milwaukie light-rail line must also compete with other Oregon transportation projects for funding, Clark said, including a proposed commuter rail line between Wilsonville and Salem.

The state Legislature this session will consider an Oregon Department of Transportation request for $2 million to study the state's rail options for freight and passenger trains. Until the study is complete, Clark said, it will be difficult to know exactly what a Milwaukie line would compete with for funding.

"We passed a tipping point in light rail with I-205," Clark said. "Everybody wants it now."
http://www.djc-or.com/viewStory.cfm?recid=29020&userID=1

Dougall5505

Mar 7, 2007, 11:34 PM

great news about the miluakie line. I wonder what color it will be...
anyway not big news but it seems that problems with the steel bridge are mounting. It looks like it'll soon be time to upgrade.
Don't use the Steel Bridge to drive home tonight
Posted by The Oregonian March 07, 2007 12:25PM
Categories: Breaking News, East Multnomah County, Portland
The I-84 ramp northbound to I-5 and eastbound traffic on the Steel Bridge will be stopped until about 8 p.m. this evening to make emergency electrical repairs to the Steel Bridge.

The Steel Bridge will be open in both directions for buses, MAX, bicycles and pedestrians. Westbound cars will also be allowed. Eastbound car commuters will need to cross another downtown bridge.

Motorists inbound on I-84 wishing to get to the Convention Center and Rose Garden area should use the Lloyd Center exit.

alexjon

Mar 8, 2007, 1:16 AM

For those who want to know, the MAX dealt well with this morning's mishap, and I was at work at the normal time, even though I have to take the yellow line through downtown.

It's funny that a VEHICLE ON THE ROAD caused this accident, and not the EVIL MAX.

65MAX

Mar 8, 2007, 6:53 AM

great news about the miluakie line. I wonder what color it will be...

Milwaukie MAX (hopefully to OC) will be the south half of the Yellow Line. Barbur MAX will likely be an extension of the Green Line.

MarkDaMan

Mar 13, 2007, 3:42 PM

http://www.portlandtribune.com/news_graphics/117373535173518700.jpg
L.E. BASKOW / P0RTLAND TRIBUNE

Rain takes toll on train station fix
Leaks during roof repairs cause damage, leading to questions about timing
By Jennifer Anderson
The Portland Tribune, Mar 13, 2007

It wasn’t long ago that some of the employees at Portland’s Union Station were wearing rubber boots and raincoats to stay dry as they worked inside, according to Arlen Sheldrake, president of the Pacific Northwest chapter of the National Railway Historical Society.

Sheldrake, whose passion is to preserve railroad history, said the roof above the baggage handling area leaked like a sieve for two weeks, and the floor was “like a swimming pool.”

The water damaged boxes of paperwork, pieces of lumber and electrical equipment, and caused workers to worry about mold and asbestos contamination.

Sheldrake faults the city – which manages the historic station under the Portland Development Commission’s ownership – for beginning a major roof-repair project during the heavy rain season.

“Why in the world would you open a flat roof in November?” he asked. “This building needs kindness. It doesn’t need to be beat up.”

Jim Coker, who oversees the project for the city’s Office of Management and Finances, said contractors began the $1.5 million project during the winter to stay on track with the federal funding timeline, since most of the money comes from state and federal transportation enhancement funds. The PDC and city chipped in small matching grants as well.

“They look at your ability to manage a project,” Coker said. “Early on, we wanted to keep going, wanted to show them we could complete this in a timely manner.”

Coker said the roof wasn’t supposed to leak like it did. But when contractors began uncovering the roof in mid-December, they found a number of joists that were cracked and broken. One had sunk almost 5 inches.

Coker said that since the section of roof was designed in the 1920s, it wasn’t built to withstand the loads of snow and other weight.

So the city added another $280,000 to address the new structural improvements that were needed. On days it rained heavily, they did not work on it. They covered it every night with plastic sheeting. But because of the way the roof sagged in two areas, the water couldn’t drain very well, Coker said.

“The entire project team worked as quickly and diligently as possible to correct the inadequate structure under very difficult circumstances, and the roof is now functional and safe for many years to come,” Coker said.

“In short, if I had known at the beginning of the project what I know now, I would never have allowed the roof work to take place in the winter.”

Coker said the city has a second state and federal grant of $1.5 million to repair the upper section of roof, with the construction – including demolishing the current roof and installing new tiles – slated for the summer of 2009.

“Projects never go quite as planned, but regardless how the design phase progresses, the next construction phase on upper red metal tiles will definitely not be done in the winter,” he said.

Other work that’s under way includes fixing the crumbling limestone balustrades on the station’s clock tower, repairing the gutters and replacing some of the old doors on the building with historic replicas through a company called Naven Restoration, a subcontractor to the general contractor, Skyward Construction Inc.

The city also has hired an environmental consultant to remove lead paint and a small amount of mold and asbestos found in the baggage claim ceiling, Coker said. Based on the small amount and the fact that it is being cleaned up appropriately, he said, “we are not concerned for any harmful levels of these materials.”

After the city spends its second grant for the next phase of roof work, there are no further funds secured to pay for the myriad of overdue repairs and upgrades to the 110-year-old station, which Coker estimates at $30 million to $40 million.

jenniferanderson@portlandtribune.com
http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=117373381471229100

der Reisender

Mar 14, 2007, 1:09 AM

http://apta.com/research/stats/ridership/

Yes, although the APTA's site says its only 3rd Quarter ridership stats, it is indeed the 4th Quarter. Some numbers:

MAX Weekday ridership: 100,400, up 2.87% on the year
Bus Weekday ridership: 205,300, down 1.35% on the year

Total Weekday ridership: 309,400, up .12% this year

So basically we are stagnant, and if I recall our bus ridership in particular has been in this holding pattern the last few years, despite population growth across the region. Whats the deal? What could be done to improve ridership on the bus or MAX?

I for one would like to see fewer bus stops along the lines. Living by the 8 in NE, it is well used, but I rarely ride it myself, instead taking the extra time to go to MAX, because it takes so damn long. Why do we have stops every two blocks? I wish TriMet would re-evaluate the bus stops on each line to increase speed and reliability, and direct amenities to improving the remaining stops. I'd rather walk an extra three blocks than sit on the bus an extra ten minutes

alexjon

Mar 14, 2007, 1:43 AM

We need to make tax incentives based off of transit

zilfondel

Mar 14, 2007, 3:24 AM

I read something on portlandtransport by someone who said the current Trimet system is setup for people who want to travel only a couple of miles by transit - it is NOT for people who actually need to get somewhere. Living close-in, I take the bus downtown, but bicycle or ride my scooter everywhere else in the immediate area. I simply do not travel to any of the suburbs, as it takes half the day.

We need a full-blown metro system at this point. MAX could be built to those kinds of standards... but they've been using it as a development tool so tourists can ogle at the pretty tracks and convince them to buy condos in downtown. Or they build the line where nobody lives or wants to travel to (greenfields in Hillsboro, Interstate MAX).

alexjon

Mar 14, 2007, 3:27 AM

I live beyond beaverton and work in far north portland and take the MAX both ways.

WonderlandPark

Mar 14, 2007, 4:16 AM

I live beyond beaverton and work in far north portland and take the MAX both ways.

You of all people should be for putting the sucker underground. Didn't figure you for living way out in Hillsboro or something.

pdxman

Mar 14, 2007, 4:55 AM

I definitely agree with your statement zilf...I love the idea of the MAX, but i think it is very ineffective in its current form. Right now its just a bigger more expensive streetcar. They need to condense many of their stops and MUST subway the max through DT in order for it to be more of a bonafide commuter tool. Trimet needs to get it together--tho they have their TIP it just doesn't seem like they're planning the MAX system very well, like they're just piecing it together. Not too mention the bus system is starting to go south. Idk i'm just not liking where trimet is heading...

designpdx

Mar 14, 2007, 8:26 PM

Room 606

Mar 14, 2007, 11:39 PM

Not too mention the bus system is starting to go south.

What do you mean by that?

Keep in mind that these numbers are after considerable fare increases. TriMet could have made more cuts to service and seen even larger declines in ridership, but instead went with fare increases. You can definitely argue that one either way, but I think it's important to view these numbers in this context.

pdxman

Mar 15, 2007, 1:09 AM

I wasn't talking about the numbers so much as i was the quality of the buses themselves. I go to cities like seattle, sacramento, even salem! and the buses are clean, quiet and much more enviromentally friendly than trimets. Thats what i meant.

alexjon

Mar 15, 2007, 1:28 AM

You of all people should be for putting the sucker underground. Didn't figure you for living way out in Hillsboro or something.

Well, it's not that long a trip, tbh... the only trouble comes in the span between PGE park and Washington Park

And yeah, I'm all for putting it underground

MarkDaMan

Mar 15, 2007, 2:50 PM

could the bus ridership numbers be going down because bike transportation numbers are increasing, quite dramatically actually? If I didn't have a Max line and had to rely on buses, I'd probably ride my bike instead too, for many reasons.

Snowden352

Mar 15, 2007, 4:06 PM

Just thought I'd drop my thoughts in the debate...

Honestly, I think the rail (of whatever kind) needs to be dramatically retooled. I think the region, if it's serious about alternate transportation, it needs to focus less on getting as many lines as possible into downtown (which I think has proven to have peaked) and start getting rapid transit into the other major employment centers, like the north-east industrial parks, the northwest industrial zone, kruse way, the major tech campuses in Washington County, etc. Without such options, people will have to rely on their cars as the only reasonable means to get from point A to point B.

Until tri-met and the region focuses on actually offering rapid transit as an efficient means of getting around, rapid transit will be what the critics call it, a "toy train".
(Just a note, I disagree with it being called that)

Snowden352

Mar 15, 2007, 4:13 PM

Room 606

Mar 15, 2007, 5:17 PM

I used to agree with you Snowden. But a fully developed system of commuter rail just isn't all that compatible with our region. Commuter rail is generally best for distances greater than 10 miles. Building commuter rail lines that extend 15, 20, and 30+ miles from downtown gets you well into areas beyond the urban growth boundary. This is exactly where we don't want easy commuter access to employment.

I do agree that specific commuter rail lines makes sense - namely Portland-McMinville, Portland-Wilsonville and Portland-Salem. But if we're serious about focusing much of our growth in already built up areas, we need to be very careful about opening places like rural Yamhill or Clackamas county up to easy commuting, even if it is by rail.

Of course the dynamic shifts if the floodgates to development in these areas is opened by the likes of Measure 37. But if we're serious about protecting farmland and open space and concentrating population in already developed areas, a comprehensive "rapid" regional commuter rail system probably isn't the answer.

I am curious to know what other people think about this.

zilfondel

Mar 15, 2007, 5:46 PM

(warning: unashamed self-congratulation)
You know what? I think I'm so right, I'm gonna toss out my ideas

I think the region is neglecting the best transit line we have available: Commuter rail! I mean we have how many thousands of miles of tracks ALREADY laid out and how often do trains actually run on those tracks?!? Not very bloody often! If we could reach with a larger agreement we could set up a comprehensive, region-wide and (most importantly) cheap method of rapid transit! I mean, rather than spending nearly billions to establish new lines, right of way, and new construction, we could just be pulling the washington county commuter line across the entire region; hell, we could expand the network with some ready-at-hand private funds (the rail lines, themselves) and public funds. What's more, the lines already connect to many, if not most of the major employment centers. The lines even run near many major neighborhoods, and wouldn't need to interfere with the local street networks!
I mean, am I nuts? Does this seem like a good idea? Tell me!!!!

I've been toying with the idea of creating a nice google map of all the heavy rail tracks in the Metro area to see how close theyget to these main 'centers' of employment and regional areas (ie, Gateway, 'downtown' Beaverton, etc). I suspect it wouldn't need a lot of additions to create a German-style S-Bahn system, except perhaps another tunnel to downtown thru the West Hills. Yea, I know, but if you want commuter rail...

One of the biggest annoyances is the lack of pedestrian places to act as destinations. Like who really wants to go to Beaverton? There isn't even any place to go to, for christsakes!

I do agree that specific commuter rail lines makes sense - namely Portland-McMinville, Portland-Wilsonville and Portland-Salem. But if we're serious about focusing much of our growth in already built up areas, we need to be very careful about opening places like rural Yamhill or Clackamas county up to easy commuting, even if it is by rail.

Actually, commuer rail and trains in general encourage far more compact growth - although in this day and age that needs to be enforced by land-use laws, restrictions and zoning. But people aren't going to drive an hour to get to a park and ride lot, wait for the train, ride it another hour downtown, then walk another 10-30 minutes to their destination. The oft-cited 'transit oriented development' model, however, works quite well for rail commuting - housing located probably within a couple miles of the station is ideally situated and will probably attract a lot of riders, as long as there are actual destinations at the other end of the line (would help if it connects to the MAX system, too).

Historically, however, rail never encouraged sprawl. Small, densely packed suburbs, yes; sprawl, no.

Room 606

Mar 15, 2007, 6:58 PM

(first, Z, could you edit your post to fix the quote box? I wouldn't want to be given credit for your words :) )

I agree that rail can and does in some cases create less sprawling suburbs than might otherwise be built. My point about commuter rail, however, was to ask whether we want any sort of suburbs - even the densest and best designed -extending 20 and 30 miles out into currently rural/small town parts of the region. Or are we better off focusing on a more extensive rail network, albeit a slower one, that serves the areas we want to focus growth? If it's the latter we're after, then commuter rail, for the reasons mentioned in my last post, only makes sense on a few key routes between existing population centers.

Rail helped Los Angeles to develop the way it did in the early part of the century. As a result, it has suburban density that many in Portland would envy. The other side of that coin, of course, is that the extensive rail network helped these "streetcar suburbs" extend for about 50 miles from central LA into what had been farm land.

Obviously Los Angeles circa 1915 and Portland today are two very different animals. But I think this example does show the danger of believing that suburban development is positive just because it's linked to rail.

pdxman

Mar 15, 2007, 11:42 PM

ODOT to hold open house on southeast Portland viaduct project

Posted by The Oregonian March 15, 2007 16:26PM

The Oregon Department of Transportation has scheduled an open house next week to explain a project to replace the Southeast Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard and Grand Avenue viaducts on Oregon 99E in Southeast Portland.

ODOT staff and officials from the contractor, Max J. Kuney Construction of Spokane, will discuss project details and traffic impacts at the open house, from 4 to 7 p.m. Tuesday at the OMSI Auditorium, 1945 S.E. Water Ave.

The $64 million project is scheduled for completion in fall 2010.

The first phase of the project, which began in March 2006 and is now almost done, focused on relocating utilities and building a new southbound Oregon 99E exit and entrance ramps near the Ross Island Bridge.

Phase two will replace the existing viaducts. Due to the complex nature of the work, travel lanes will be shifted many times during the project, said Shawn Uhlman, ODOT spokesman.

Two travel lanes will be maintained in each direction most of the time. But the work will require temporary closures of one or more lanes on some nights and weekends, Uhlman said.

The viaducts carry 60,000 vehicles per day with traffic peaks exceeding 6,000 vehicles per hour.

- James Mayer; jimmayer@news.oregonian.com

WonderlandPark

Mar 15, 2007, 11:44 PM

Crap, I better get down there and do some photography before they bring the viaducts down.

zilfondel

Mar 16, 2007, 1:26 AM

^^^ Better hurry, as there is a ton of machinery already down there. Looks like they are (surprise!) starting with the sewer work. They've also rebuilt a bunch of RR track and some new streets around OMSI already.

Drmyeyes

Mar 16, 2007, 5:23 AM

Room 606, Opening up rural counties to better commuting via rail might not be such a bad idea in regards to population increase in these counties if the means by which such a population was housed and served in these areas were carefully thought through.

If portions of land and resources being conserved through zoning and land use laws were carefully and efficiently used for rural/ urban commute communities, greater numbers of people might reasonably be able to live out in these areas, yet minimizing adverse effects of their presence there.

The entire area around 185th in Hillsboro (I think that's Hillsboro's territory), north to Bethany, West Union, is a great example of what not to do. Not so many years ago, the entire area was quite rural. Most of the buildings allowed to be constructed to serve this large, new community were low level. There's probably nothing there over 4 stories tall. It does cost more to build higher, but if the need for housing and the desire to live in or close to a rural environment really exists, it seems as though something like this might be done.

zilfondel

Mar 16, 2007, 7:11 AM

My point about commuter rail, however, was to ask whether we want any sort of suburbs - even the densest and best designed -extending 20 and 30 miles out into currently rural/small town parts of the region. Or are we better off focusing on a more extensive rail network, albeit a slower one, that serves the areas we want to focus growth? If it's the latter we're after, then commuter rail, for the reasons mentioned in my last post, only makes sense on a few key routes between existing population centers.

I would like to see the Willamette Valley integrated as much as possible economically - and fast rail connections between the cities and towns (centers) will allow them to be treated more or less as one entity. Heck, they already are half there, except the traffic and environmental impact of roads and the necessity of building more freeways will entail. There isn't much we can do to stop it anyhow; may as well force the tightest growth as possible and knit it all together.

Besides, many of those smaller towns are really economically depressed and could absorb quite a lot of growth - taking pressure off of greenfield sites and preserve farmland and timberland, keeping it productive.

However, remember that LA never had an UGB, so the development we'll see here with dense little nodes connected by rail - what is actually termed regional rail, not commuter - would be like we'd see in Europe. Some sprawl (which we already have), but lots of opportunity for higher densities. Heck, we're already seeing higher densities all over smaller cities in Oregon, such as Eugene, Corvallis, Hood River, Medford... we just need the transportation infrastructure there. The rail doesn't need to be high speed either; trains in Switzerland only average about 60+ mph but offer excellent and convenient coverage.

Snowden352

Mar 16, 2007, 3:17 PM

:previous:
This isn't exactly what I was thinking of, but OK!

MarkDaMan

Mar 16, 2007, 6:12 PM

this sucks!

Stuck Train Whistle Blares For 90+ Minutes
KOIN
PORTLAND - If you live in northeast Portland, you may have heard a collective sigh of relief around 8:30 p.m. Wednesday.

trainA train whistle blew nonstop for more than 90 minutes.

After getting several calls about the train in the KOIN News 6 newsroom, we tracked it down to Northeast Cully and Columbia streets. Curious neighbors, unable to watch TV with all the noise, were there, too.

Dave Prow said he shut all the windows and doors and could still hear the whistle.

A railroad worker finally shut off the sound. It wasn't clear what triggered the whistle.
http://www.koin.com/Global/story.asp?S=6231939

pdxman

Mar 17, 2007, 1:27 AM

Haha oh man that would suck^^^

Dougall5505

Mar 17, 2007, 2:11 AM

that reminds me of a blazer game a couple of years ago the horn got stuck after one of the quarters and stayed on for about 10 minutes

MarkDaMan

Mar 19, 2007, 3:35 PM

Metro slots $64M in federal funds for transit projects
Daily Journal of Commerce
by Libby Tucker
03/19/2007

Metro on Thursday picked 32 transportation projects as recipients of a portion of $64 million in federal grants the regional government will receive in 2010-2011.

Projects picked for the largest allocations, of $3 million or more, included proposed improvements along East Baseline and East Burnside streets and programs that advocate mass transit and better transportation system management technologies.

Sixty-eight project requests totaling $132 million competed for the funds, which the Federal Highway Administration’s Surface Transportation program and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement program will distribute to Metro.

Metro will negotiate with city, county and state transportation agencies to match $6.57 million in project costs. Metro must secure matching funds in order to receive the federal grants.

“I continue to believe there’s a gross disproportion in the needs for these kinds of projects and the amount of money going to other things,” Metro councilor Robert Liberty said Thursday at the public meeting. “I just wish we were funding a lot more of them.”

Metro’s Regional Travel Options program, which works to provide awareness and alternatives to driving alone, received about $4.3 million, the largest allocation. Street improvements on East Baseline Street from 10th to 19th avenues would receive $3.2 million subject to demonstration of public outreach to the Hispanic and low-income populations in the vicinity of the project.

Similarly, East Burnside Street improvements between Third and 14th avenues would receive $3 million subject to outreach to low-income populations in the area.

And Metro’s Intelligent Transportation Systems program, which implements and plans the use of advanced technologies for transportation system management, is slotted to receive $3 million under the funding allocation.

Metro Council and the Joint Policy Advisory Committee gave preference to projects based on their potential to spur economic development inside industrial areas, on undeveloped lands inside urban growth boundaries, and at centers for economic development identified in Metro’s 2040 regional growth concept.

Policymakers also aimed to fund modes that do not have dedicated revenue sources, to complete gaps in modal systems and to develop a multi-modal transportation system. The list of projects receiving funding is “a nice, wide variety of things that go around the region that do a lot of necessary things that local governments can’t pull together,” Rex Burkholder, a Metro councilor and JPACT chairman, said. “It’s quite a bit that gets funded by these dollars, and it’s great to have the ability to flex them and use them in a variety of ways.”
http://www.djc-or.com/viewStory.cfm?recid=29086&userID=1

JoshYent

Mar 19, 2007, 3:45 PM

Obviously Los Angeles circa 1915 and Portland today are two very different animals. But I think this example does show the danger of believing that suburban development is positive just because it's linked to rail.

I think that with the current metro boundaries we have plenty of land to develop these areas for the time being...and we should focus on fixing everything within the current boundary, as far as schools, the roads, basically repair our infrastructure, and focus on working on the different core areas we already have, Hillsboro, Beaverton, Tigard, Tualatin to the west, and as well as Gresham, Willsonville, Clackamas, West Linn in the other surrounding areas.......

of course we need room to grow out...but the rate that they are expanding this boundary should be slowed so that we can promote growth in the areas that area already getting quality public transportation and roads....IE...more growth and expansion along the max lines...

JoshYent

Mar 19, 2007, 3:55 PM

zilfondel

Mar 20, 2007, 12:35 AM

I think that with the current metro boundaries we have plenty of land to develop these areas for the time being...and we should focus on fixing everything within the current boundary, as far as schools, the roads, basically repair our infrastructure, and focus on working on the different core areas we already have, Hillsboro, Beaverton, Tigard, Tualatin to the west, and as well as Gresham, Willsonville, Clackamas, West Linn in the other surrounding areas.......

of course we need room to grow out...but the rate that they are expanding this boundary should be slowed so that we can promote growth in the areas that area already getting quality public transportation and roads....IE...more growth and expansion along the max lines...

I sort of agree, but there are lots of other communities in Oregon that need and could benefit from people living there, as well. You can't force everyone moving to the state of oregon to only settle in the city of portland, for instance. Some people find jobs in Eugene, or McMinnville, want to retire and ski in Bend, or maybe they even like Gresham... :shrug:

However, with greater population in the state, and the limited roads we have, we're noticing a sharp increase of traffic. Wouldn't it be better if you could hop from city to city (center) using intercity rail (we call it commuter rail in the US simply because they usually only run it during rush house, but in Europe it's 'intercity rail'), which would limit the amount of road expansion we'd have to build in the state. Less freeway exits translate to fewer outlet shopping malls and Bridgeport Villages. :hell:

This is the primary difference between California and places like Swtizerland and Germany: compact development.

mcbaby

Mar 20, 2007, 3:52 AM

inner city rail would be awesome. i don't think expanding the urban growth boundry is necessary when there are loads of run down areas, empty lots, miles of parking lots, etc. with better planning and smart density, we wouldn't have to keep gobbling up the countryside. with no farms there would be no food. put jobs and shopping along transit and lessen the need for long commutes.

MarkDaMan

Mar 20, 2007, 3:13 PM

Transit fans stay on track
Once rivals, streetcar and MAX supporters align forces for funds
By Nick Budnick
The Portland Tribune

Supporters of two local rail projects have joined forces in recent months, forging a new political equation that could shape greater Portland’s transportation future.

Just last summer, Milwaukie officials were making headlines with fears that their residents would never see a promised light-rail link to Portland.

The 10-year-old plan to connect the two cities was on the political equivalent of life support, and younger projects like the Portland streetcar – proposed to extend east over the Willamette River – threatened to trample the old-timer en route to a too-small pot of transportation cash.

Today, however, supporters of the two projects are working together to secure funding in Salem. It’s an alliance that could increase the chance that both will succeed in Washington, D.C.

“There’s an accommodation that seems to have been reached at the moment, both financially and politically,” said David Bragdon, president of the Metro Council.

The two projects are now “connected at the hip,” said Peter Finley Fry, a consultant who is working to bring the Portland streetcar to the central east side.

The alliance is significant because in the world of transportation politics, every project has its own constituency of officials, agencies and business interests. And supporters of Milwaukie light rail and the streetcar’s east-side loop had increasingly viewed the other as potential competitors for a limited pool of financial and political capital.

“Moving working-class people from their neighborhoods to their jobs, as (the Milwaukie proposal) does, is still a really important role for transportation,” Metro Councilor Brian Newman told the Portland Tribune. “Every month or so it seems like there is a new streetcar line proposed by the city of Portland … and it makes some people nervous.”
Projects could share bridge

Members of the streetcar board had even explored sending the streetcar to Milwaukie instead of light rail, thinking that the price tag of light rail barred it from becoming reality. The light-rail project was deemed “stalled out” by Commissioner Sam Adams, the streetcar’s most visible proponent.

Over the last six months, however, the dynamic changed.

For one thing, local officials have realized that lottery-backed bonds issued for west-side MAX will be paid off by 2009, freeing a lottery-backed line of credit that could support construction of the Milwaukie light rail.

That has given the project a “shot in the arm,” Adams said. He has been among the Portland officials lobbying the state Legislature to allot $250 million in lottery-backed bonds to light rail and $25 million for the streetcar.

Meanwhile, burgeoning development in the city’s new South Waterfront area has led to a growing realization that the Milwaukie project’s proposed light-rail crossing near the Ross Island Bridge will be needed to ease traffic congestion there.

The city of Portland has asked Metro to consider moving the crossing 400 feet south, for greater access to South Waterfront. And, Newman said, “the interest of the South Waterfront property owners has changed from benign neglect to enthusiastic support” of Milwaukie light rail.

The bridge could be shared by the streetcar if it succeeds in securing federal funding to extend down Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Grand Avenue to the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry.

Besides the realization of a shared interest in the bridge, there also was the realization that a fight between local transit interests could sink both projects.

Streetcar supporters “saw that getting into a fight with Milwaukie was a losing proposition, so let’s be partners instead,” said Chris Smith, a board member of the nonprofit Portland Streetcar Inc.

Moving the light-rail bridge closer to the sprouting condo and office towers of South Waterfront could make the Milwaukie plan more attractive for funding by the federal government, which rates projects based on ridership.

“I think people were wary in the beginning about how to make both of these projects move together,” Adams said. “But we’ve worked hard to show ourselves that indeed they both can move forward, and having them both move forward is complementary.”

Having both projects become a reality could be “a huge, good important step forward,” Adams said.
Funding’s still an issue

If you don’t see news releases announcing a group hug between the projects’ supporters, however, it’s probably because both still compete for TriMet operating funds – which come from a payroll tax levied on the region’s employers.

While the construction-funding part of the puzzle is coming together, “the part we haven’t figured out is the operating costs to pay for the operations of both the streetcar and the light-rail line to Milwaukie,” Adams said.

TriMet General Manager Fred Hansen has said an increase in TriMet’s payroll tax approved by the Legislature should leave room for just one large project and one small project in the coming decade.

That means that if Milwaukie light rail is funded, TriMet could not afford to pay two-thirds of the streetcar’s operating costs on the east side, as it has with past streetcar segments.

Streetcar supporters hope to persuade TriMet to fund one-third of the operating costs, and get the rest of the money from increased fare revenue and city parking funds, potentially supported by new parking meters in the central east side.

“I don’t think we’ve figured it out yet,” said Finley Fry of the operating-funds question.

TriMet’s limited supply of operating funds means that the new alliance, if successful, could lead to the postponement of other projects, including proposals to send the streetcar to Lake Oswego, build a second phase of Washington County commuter rail, and extend light rail north to Vancouver, Wash., and west to Forest Grove.

“There is a finite supply of operational funding, and anyone who says otherwise is not telling the truth,” Newman said.

Also, TriMet is under pressure to invest in bus service to reverse a decline in spending, frequency and ridership in recent years. Some transit advocates fear that devoting all the increase in payroll taxes to rail projects will leave bus service out in the cold.

“First and foremost, bus service should be improved,” said Jim Howell, a former TriMet planner and member of the Association of Oregon Rail and Transit Advocates.

nickbudnick@portlandtribune.com
http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=117434222410997900

NJD

Mar 20, 2007, 5:53 PM

I really hope Portland and/or Oregon put up ballots for increased gas taxes, tolls, car registrations, payroll taxes, etc... to help out the ever increasing list of road and transit projects...

look at Washington or California and you will see that both states have passed MULTIPLE transportation packages. San Fran is getting its new subway, BART is heading farther south toward San Jose, LA is extending 2 rail lines, Seattle is getting their Link system off the ground and extending it to the airport and UW, Sacramento is expanding their system, even the whole state of California is looking at high speed rail from Sacramento to San Diego... and all of this is only a small portion of transportation funding, road projects are getting the most money.

Sorry for the rant, but I hate to see Oregon fall apart. We really need a strong transportation mayor and/or governor to just tell us to fork out the cash because the time is now.

pdxman

Mar 20, 2007, 9:32 PM

^^^Agreed...Oregon is starting to fall far, far behind other states in terms of transportation infrastructure. Millions more people in the coming decades + same old roads and rail + people not willing to pay more taxes = not gonna work. Taxes or tolls people...which one will it be?

WonderlandPark

Mar 20, 2007, 9:57 PM

Oregon's infrastructure is a POS and 2-3 decades behind where it should be. People here don't want to do shit about it, either, whether it be roads or rail. Vancouver now opposing "loot rail" WTF? 217, still that little PATHETIC highway in this century? Sunnyside corridor, even if a toll road is dead and yet Metro is targeting Damascus for 20,000 homes, what are they going to do, beam themselves to work on the transporter? I could go on for hours....

brandonpdx

Mar 20, 2007, 11:00 PM

remember what Vancouver is saying, "congestion is our friend."
get's people to think differently about how and where they live.

tworivers

Mar 20, 2007, 11:58 PM

^^^Yes. "Induced congestion" is unofficial city policy here too, as it should be. We should better maintain the roads as they exist now, while funneling, with a great sense of urgency, many times the funding into mass transit that we currently are. With Sam on the ball (and possibly running for mayor next year), we have a decent chance of upgrading and expanding our funding strategies.

The idea that the Milwaukie MAX and Eastside Streetcar will result in the delay of other projects, like the Lake O Streetcar and commuter rail extension to Salem, is probably just the usual pseudo-journalism bullshit that the Tribune seems to specialize in. Things are already moving too slowly, whether you're looking at the specter of global warming or just the projected in-migration numbers for the next 15-20 years, and I doubt many of the folks managing the city and transit systems, or representing us in Salem and DC, would allow mass transit dvlpt to either slow down or come to a halt after those two rail lines are completed. That's just my hunch. The funding "crisis" will be dealt with, because we don't really have much else of a choice. A year ago at most, we were hearing that one or the other line (Milwaukie or Eastside)was likely to be cancelled or delayed if the other went through. Now, surprise, we've figured out how to fund both, basically simultaneously.

65MAX

Mar 21, 2007, 2:06 AM

^^^^ Exactly right, priorities have a way of changing rapidly, especially now that gas is over $3/gallon again. Funny how that works....

We really have no choice but to invest heavily in mass transit while maintaining existing streets and highways. There's also a need for additiional roads in places like Damascus, that will be absorbing a lot of future growth. Just plan for the roads and rails we need, the money will come when priorities shift.

MarkDaMan

Mar 21, 2007, 3:39 PM

Vancouver narrows mass transit choices
Daily Journal of Commerce
by Libby Tucker
03/21/2007

VANCOUVER – Over the next year, Clark County will decide whether to develop Southwest Washington’s first high-capacity transit system.

Population growth and increased congestion along Vancouver’s highways have led elected officials and regional planners to consider, for the first time since the mid-1980s, building other modes such as bus rapid transit, light rail, streetcar and commuter rail.

“It’s a good time for Clark County as a whole to have this discussion,” said John Cullerton, senior transportation project manager for URS Corp., the consultant firm leading the Clark County High Capacity Transit System study.

Through a series of public meetings, the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council will work with a steering committee of policymakers and a citizens’ advisory task force to identify the best high-capacity modes to serve the region’s most-traveled transportation corridors.

The potential for economic development along the travel corridors, the cost of the projects and land-use compatibility will be considered for each of the modes along at least four major corridors: Interstate 5 South, Interstate 205 South, state Route 500 West and state Route 14 West.

But some citizens’ advisory task force and community members are concerned the region’s long-term planning process is shortsighted.

“I think they have to look at least 50 years (ahead), at least conceptually,” said George Vartanian, a Clark County resident and member of the county planning commission. “The county needs to have a grasp on where the land use will (change)” and plan accordingly, he said.

Although the transportation plan will consider improvements based on 2030 population and traffic projections, the county’s land-use plan only extends to 2024.

The county should look farther than the region’s immediate needs to identify corridors for potential future transportation options and limit development along those corridors to preserve right-of-way, said Dick Malin, vice chairman of the Central Park Neighborhood Association in Vancouver and a member of the citizens’ advisory task force.

“We need to make sure the study includes the possibility for extensions in areas that we identify,” said Dale Robins, senior transportation planner for the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council.

Once the steering committee and the task force identify the best locations for high-capacity transit, Robins said, they should “recommend to land-use bodies to preserve corridors we might want to extend.”
http://www.djc-or.com/viewStory.cfm?recid=29100&userID=1

MarkDaMan

Mar 21, 2007, 3:42 PM

Hawthorne two-thirds through overhaul
Road work - The weather has delayed work, but pedestrians see improvements
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
KIMBERLY A.C. WILSON
The Oregonian

Shoe store windows showcase Mary Janes and sandals in the hottest shades of springy green, and New Year's calligraphy brushed on scrolls in lucky red and gold hang in the glass at Thai restaurants along the street.

But these days, bright orange is the true color of Southeast Hawthorne Boulevard.

Heading east across its bridge, orange cones, traffic barrels, signs, and flags mark no less than 17 intersections from Southeast 16th to 51st avenues.

The riot of color won't last forever. Crews are two-thirds through a yearlong project begun July 17 to make the street safer to drive and easier to cross.

Already, new traffic signals have gone up at five crossroads -- the operating ones at Southeast 37th and 34th avenues have already reduced perilous jaywalking -- and curb extensions are giving pedestrians refuge at a handful of corners.

Randy Gartner, project manager for Kodiak Benge Construction of Tualatin, the Portland Transportation Bureau's contractor on the $2.5 million project, said the work is about a week behind schedule because of fall's heavy rains.

"November was extremely wet and the snow days held us up, but we've made up a couple of days since then," Gartner said. "We're making up time."

On rainy days last week, workers began building four decorative "Bike Oasis" shelters made of glass and steel with racks for 10 bicycles. When the skies cleared, they poured cement for sidewalks. This week, expect to see trees planted between Southeast 41st and 55th avenues, wrapping up work on that segment.

Meanwhile, crews from the city's Water Bureau have been replacing old flow valves along the boulevard.

Transportation work is set to be finished June 30. The Hawthorne Boulevard Business Association is planning a celebration, said Paul Niedergang, an association member who owns a property redevelopment firm on the thoroughfare.

"It does feel like it's been going on forever, but I think it's actually proceeding more or less according to plan," he said.

Kimberly Wilson: 503-412-7017; kimberlywilson@ news.oregonian.com
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/portland_news/1174355710251970.xml&coll=7

MarkDaMan

Mar 23, 2007, 3:23 PM

Congestion costs Oregonians $1.7 billion
Daily Journal of Commerce
by Libby Tucker
03/23/2007

Failure to invest in transportation could lead to $1.7 billion in lost income and 16,000 lost jobs in Oregon over the next 20 years, according to a new study released yesterday by the Portland Business Alliance and the Oregon Business Council.

The analysis, prepared by the Economic Development Research Group in Boston, compared current transportation funding levels to an improved scenario of additional funding to calculate the potential economic impacts of increased highway congestion in the state.

The new study widens the scope of the original cost of congestion study, released by the regional government Metro in December, which found that failure to relieve traffic congestion in the Portland metro area will cost the region 6,500 jobs and $844 million in lost commerce by 2025.

Traffic congestion isn’t limited to the Portland region. At the current level of transportation funding, according to the new study, Oregonians will spend an additional 1 million hours in their vehicles by 2025 due to increased traffic, limited road capacity and impacting tourism and recreational activities.

“There is growing congestion in other areas of the Willamette Valley and in Bend,” Bernie Bottomly, vice president of government affairs for the Portland Business Alliance, said. “And there is an impact on businesses outside the Portland area that have to get their freight through Portland.”

The business alliance plans to take the new study to the House Committee on Transportation next week to make its case for an additional $300 million to $350 million in state transportation funding. The Alliance also will push for a statewide transportation planning model that relies on economic indicators to determine a project’s return on investment, Bottomly said.

“The (statewide) cost of congestion is pointing out the importance of dealing with this in the Portland area for the rest of the state,” Metro Councilor Rex Burkholder said. “The whole rest of the state is dependent on getting their goods in and out of Portland. (The study) makes it real for the non-Portland-area people.”

http://www.djc-or.com/viewStory.cfm?recid=29118&userID=1

MarkDaMan

Mar 27, 2007, 3:36 PM

State leaders draw roadmap for transportation reform
Daily Journal of Commerce
by Libby Tucker
03/27/2007

A movement among city and regional planners and elected officials is afoot to scrap the way Oregon invests in transportation.

The state and the nation have reached a new era in transportation that calls for creative solutions to pricing and congestion. Gas tax revenue can’t keep up with the rising cost of road construction and materials. And the federal highway trust fund, which over the last 50 years has paid for nine out of every 10 of the nation’s highway miles, will be bankrupt as early as 2008.

“Existing funding mechanisms are definitely broken, but there is potential for innovation – creative solutions that reflect Oregon’s values,” said Lynn Peterson, a Clackamas County Commissioner and veteran transportation planner. “We’re at the forefront of a revolution that will take us 50 years forward.”

Oregon’s roads exist on borrowed time – and billions in borrowed money. The state is playing catch-up with a budget shortfall of $1.3 billion per year to maintain and expand the system even as its long-term plan includes a $4 billion list of capital expenditures given funding priority as projects of statewide significance by the Oregon Department of Transportation.

On city, county and state levels, transportation agencies and regional planners are reconsidering how they measure a transportation project’s return on investment.

Statewide, “we spend a lot of money on transportation each year, and we don’t really evaluate it in any way more than how many cars go through an intersection,” Rex Burkholder, a councilor with the regional government Metro, said.

With limited dollars available to manage the system, many question the state’s current plan to invest billions in projects that offer just one payback – a few minutes saved on the morning commute.

Instead, a new system of incremental targeted investments would, for the most part, replace massive road projects. Over the next 20 years or more, Metro expects the existing statewide system to expand no more than 5 percent.

New measures would tweak the existing system to maximize efficiency and implement transit-oriented land-use and community planning to move commuters without their cars.

Projects would also be evaluated for their emphasis on sustainable use of natural resources and measures to minimize air pollution caused by carbon-based fuel sources.

“The traditional way of developing a list of projects is to look at where systems are failing, where streets are in ill repair, where there’s traffic growth ... and there isn’t always a filter in that discussion about what that investment would mean in terms of jobs and freight mobility,” Bernie Bottomly, a lobbyist for the Portland Business Alliance, said. “ODOT could decide to do that on their own, but to date they haven’t.”

A planning committee studying options for the Columbia River Crossing came under criticism from Portland and Vancouver residents for its alleged failure to evaluate a range of options. The committee had proposed either leaving the Interstate 5 bridge as it is today or building a new multi-billion-dollar span. In response to the criticism, the committee proposed a third option – an additional bridge to be built adjacent to the current span.

The state can no longer afford to build blindly, state and regional transportation officials now say.

Among those leading the charge for transportation reform is Sen. Rick Metsger (D-Welches), whose proposed Congestion Relief Act of 2007 calls for a new state system of transportation planning and financing.

Not coincidentally, Metsger announced his plans last week as the Portland Business Alliance and Oregon Business Council released a statewide cost of congestion study they’re using to make the case for a $350 million transportation funding package.

Gov. Ted Kulongoski’s $100 million ConnectOregon 2 transportation funding package is likely to pass. But any additional large allocation for highway projects is unlikely this session, according to Rep. Mary Nolan (D-Portland), co-chairwoman of the joint Ways and Means Committee.

“My sense is that we have lots of opportunity to make the system work more effectively,” said Nolan, who favors Metsger’s longer-term approach. “We are at risk of having it begin to fail on us, (but) I don’t think we’re there yet.”

So Metsger has temporarily dismissed the business community’s call for an 11 percent gas tax increase to pay for the $350 million in congestion-relief projects, in favor of system-wide reforms.

“(The business community) wants to pull the pin now,” Metsger said. “I just don’t think the homework has been done with the public and the Legislature. Educate first, fund second.”

Metsger’s act would delay any major funding initiatives until 2009 to garner support from the public and the Legislature and study the state’s options.

But Metsger proposes a $200 million anti-congestion package – which he argues is modest compared to the business community’s $350 million request – that would be paid for by a one-time $20 fee per license plate to hold the state over until the next legislative session.

In the interim, his act calls for the formation of a joint transportation committee of stakeholders that would evaluate the possibility of assessing a local transportation utility fee similar to the monthly user fees the city’s sewer and water providers charge to pay for system improvements.

Projects of statewide significance, including the Sunrise Corridor highway project and the Columbia River Crossing, would also temporarily be placed on hold or completed in smaller increments.

Metsger is calling for the projects to be re-evaluated for a tangible return on investment based on the level of congestion relief they will achieve, as well as the projects’ economic development potential and their value in achieving state goals for sustainable living.

“I’d prefer and love to see a substantial increase in transportation funding this session,” Bill Wyatt, executive director of the Port of Portland, said. But Metsger’s proposal, he said, “is a shrewd and prudent step in the right direction.”

http://www.djc-or.com/viewStory.cfm?recid=29183&userID=1

CouvScott

Mar 27, 2007, 5:13 PM

Tuesday, March 27, 2007
By JEFFREY MIZE Columbian staff writer

Travel times would be only slightly faster than Main Street alignment

When it comes to light rail or bus rapid transit, perception might be more important than numbers.

Several members of the Vancouver City Council prefer a high-capacity transit route that would hug the east side of Interstate 5, instead of following Main Street.

Councilman Dan Tonkovich urged Columbia River Crossing officials to go with an alignment that has fewer stops and faster travel speeds.

"That's one of my criticisms of the current light-rail system in Portland," Tonkovich said. "Too many stops."

"The facts don't bear it out, but the perception is very much reality," Councilman Tim Leavitt said. "When folks see the light-rail cars zipping down the freeway when they are sitting in traffic, it's going to be very enticing."

"I like the express system," Councilman Larry Smith said. "To me, that's what light rail does, move people rapidly out of those congested areas."

The decision over high-capacity transit is one part of the crossing project, which aims to ease worsening congestion on I-5 between Washington and Oregon.

Gregg Snyder, consultant team transit manager, said crossing officials estimate that two-thirds of passengers using the transit route will be what he characterized as urban users. The remainder will be suburban commuters who drive to a Park & Ride lot and take transit to Portland jobs.

Both transit routes assume that either light rail or bus rapid transit would cross the Columbia River on a new bridge and head north on Washington Street through downtown to Mill Plain Boulevard.

One option calls for the transit line to veer east, under Interstate 5 on McLoughlin Boulevard or 16th Street, and serve Clark College before heading north along the east side of the freeway. From there, what is being called the I-5 alignment would cross over state Highway 500 and I-5 before ending at a planned Park & Ride lot just north of Kiggins Bowl.

The second option would continue north on Main Street or Broadway until the two streets merge just north of Fourth Plain Boulevard. From there, the transit line would follow Main Street north to the Kiggins Bowl Park & Ride.

Less effect on properties along route

Early estimates indicate the I-5 alignment would have three stations, instead of the six envisioned for the Main-Broadway route. Trains or buses could move passengers faster along the I-5 route, possibly at 55 mph for a short stretch, and would cover the distance in 5 minutes, instead of the estimated 7 minutes for the Main Street option.

The I-5 alignment also has less potential to affect properties along the route. Officials believe they could squeeze a transit corridor between I-5 and K Street, which lines the east side of the freeway north of Fourth Plain Boulevard.

Although council members generally favored the I-5 route, they said Main Street could be served by a trolley or other form of mass transit.

Council members didn't delve into estimates indicating the Main Street route would be cheaper to build and operate, nor did they discuss the prospects for spurring redevelopment, such as what can be seen along the Interstate Avenue light-rail line in Portland.

Following the discussion, Councilwoman Jeanne Harris said she recognizes those benefits.

"Whether it be light rail or a trolley system, it will help the neighborhood far more than hurt the neighborhood," she said.

Jeffrey Mize covers Vancouver city government. He can be reached at 360-759-8006 or jeff.mize@columbian.com.

Update

* Previously: Columbia River Crossing officials three weeks ago released two tentative routes for light rail or bus rapid transit through Vancouver.

* What's new: City council members discussed the routes Monday and expressed a preference for an alignment that follows the east side of Interstate 5.

* What's next: Both routes are expected to be studied for an environmental impact statement.

WonderlandPark

Mar 27, 2007, 5:47 PM

Thank god someone is actually *thinking* god forbid. Max does have a lot of stops, and getting an express line through North Portland is a great idea. If you had to take a train from somewhere like the mall area on SR500 on the existing line, then have to slog through all those stops and lights on interstate, it would kill your travel time and there would be little time savings to use MAX. Running it down the freeway is a great idea, MAX works best running along 84 when the stops are few and the trains can make real progress. Plus all the drivers in traffic see the train moving along, visual reinforcement.

NJD

Mar 27, 2007, 6:03 PM

from http://www.djc-or.com/viewStory.cfm?recid=29177&userID=1

Co-chairs give two transport packages $350 million
by Libby Tucker
03/26/2007

Alternative transportation scored big in the Ways and Means co-chairs’ recommended budget released by the Oregon Legislature on Thursday.

“There are two key investments we’re proposing,” Rep. Mary Nolan, D-Portland and co-chair of the joint Ways and Means committee said, “subject to the whole deliberative procedure.”

Included in the $15.3 billion budget for the state’s general fund and lottery fund in 2007 to 2009, was the proposed $100 million ConnectOregon 2 multimodal transportation funding package.

The lottery-bond-backed transportation package comes on the heels of the $100 million ConnectOregon package passed by the 2005 Legislature for aviation, rail, transit, and marine infrastructure.

The $250 million Milwaukie light rail project also received an official nod from the co-chairs for lottery-backed bonds slated for 2009 to 2011.

Portland to Milwaukie light rail “has been on the drawing board for quite a while,” said Olivia Clark, TriMet’s executive director of governmental affairs. “The people in inner Southeast Portland and in Clackamas County have been waiting a long time for this.”

Now ten years in the making, the proposed Milwaukie light rail extension project was recently revived by the regional government Metro. If approved, the 6.5-mile line will be completed in 2014, connecting an estimated 20,000 riders to the existing MAX system.

The state allocation will cover 40 percent of the project cost, with the remaining 60 percent provided by the Federal Transit Administration, according to TriMet.

“We need to take advantage of all the planning and preparation for the Milwaukie line,” Nolan said.

Overall, transportation and economic development received $238.7 million of the ’07 to ’09 co-chairs’ budget. The co-chairs’ budget also recommended the creation of a $50 million fund for county roads to supplement money lost from federal timber harvest receipts.

Missing from the budget, however, was any additional allocation for much-needed road maintenance or repair and capital improvement projects. Neither was the proposed Wilsonville to Salem commuter rail extension included.

The Portland Business Alliance, for example, had lobbied for a $350 million transportation funding package to increase freight mobility and decrease highway congestion.

“There’s probably some additional flexibility (for funding) in the transportation subcommittee,” Nolan said. But “probably nothing that would compare in magnitude to those that have already been proposed.”

To view the full budget online visit: www.leg.state.or.us/comm/ lfo/home.htm.

:cheers:

EDIT: oops, didn't see mark's posting yesterday on a seperate thread

pdxman

Mar 28, 2007, 4:00 AM

zilfondel

Mar 28, 2007, 6:12 AM

Whey does Wasington put all of its transit along the freeway? That just makes absolutely no sense to me. People don't live next to freeway interchanges, do they?

PacificNW

Mar 28, 2007, 2:30 PM

Their light rail, currently being built, has very little presence next to I-5.

MarkDaMan

Mar 28, 2007, 3:48 PM

I know somewhere in this thread we talked about the new LED advertisements on the max that would glow and light up...well i had to do a double take when i saw a bus pass by tonight and the ad on the side was glowing. I thought it was the light reflecting or something but it seemed to be one of those new ad formats trimet is going with. Anyways, not big news but pretty cool its expanding to buses

I asked TriMet and the e-mail they sent me said they were trying LED advertising out, but within two weeks the signs on the trains were unlit, and then gone. I'm glad to see they are trying it again because I thought it was awesome!

NJD

Mar 28, 2007, 7:43 PM

Metro bankrolls Milwaukie projects
Millions to fund roads, trails and work on Lake Kellogg; Oregon City fares less well

By Patrick Sherman

The Clackamas Review, Mar 28, 2007

Milwaukie is set to receive $3.6 million from the Metro Transportation Improvement Program, to pay for local road projects. The city will also benefit from an additional $2 million grant awarded by the regional government to pay for preliminary engineering on a proposed light rail line linking Milwaukie to downtown Portland.

“Metro awards about $50 million to the 25 cities that we represent every two years,” said Metro Councilor Brian Newman. “There are always more requests than we have money available. We awarded $45 million this cycle, and there were a total of $132 million in requests.”

The largest single award, in the amount of $1.5 million, will pay for improvements to Harmony Road between 82nd Avenue and Highway 224.

“The long-term plan has always been to widen Harmony from three lanes to five lanes,” said Newman. “Also, the railroad will be elevated, so that it passes overhead. When a long freight train goes through that intersection, it really ties up traffic.”

The railroad is also contributing money to the project, along with other community partners.

The trolley trail – a pedestrian path linking Milwaukie and Oregon City along the route of disused rail line – will receive $1.1 million to complete construction on the final phase of the project.

“It used to carry passengers and freight back and forth between Oregon City and Portland,” Newman explained. “After it ceased operation, the alignment remained the property of a local utility. Metro purchased it five years ago with money from our greenspace bond, along with Clackamas Parks & Recreation.”

Engineering and design is already complete for the last stretch of the trail, which will run from north of Concord Street to Echo Glen, where it will link up to an existing trail in Gladstone.

In downtown Milwaukie, a $1 million grant will fund preliminary work related to the replacement of the Kellogg Bridge and the removal of the dam below, responsible for the formation of Kellogg Lake.

“Right now, the lake is like a bathtub – it’s way too warm for fish,” said Newman. “The plan has always been to return it to its natural state, which is more like a marsh.

“As to the bridge itself, they want to widen it so they can add full-sized sidewalks and a bicycle lane.”

The overall project is expected to cost $8.7 million, with this infusion of cash from Metro paying for engineering and design.

A planned MAX light rail alignment from downtown Portland to Milwaukie received $2 million in funding, again to pay for advanced design work. The overall project is expected to cost $880 million, with 60 percent of the overall funding flowing from the federal government.

“We’re in the environmental impact phase of the project right now,” Newman said. “When that’s done, we’ll seek approval from the feds to being preliminary engineering, which is what this money will pay for.

“Every step of the way, you have to follow their process. They don’t want a lot of projects moving forward that don’t have a realistic shot of getting funded.”

One local project that did not receive Metro’s support was the second phase of Oregon City’s McLoughlin Boulevard project, which would have beautified and enhanced the roadway between the Clackamas River bridge and the Rivershore Hotel. The city’s proposal would have cost $2.8 million.

“It wasn’t that there were any problems with Oregon City’s project,” said Newman. “There was just a lot of competition in that category. They ended up getting beaten out by a project in Portland and another one in Cornelius.”

Newman expressed his optimism that the project would eventually be funded.

“We’re talking about doing a ballot measure in ’08 for transportation issues, and if we can build a consensus around that, we could see this Oregon City project as a part of that proposal,” said Newman.

MarkDaMan

Mar 28, 2007, 8:06 PM

The overall project is expected to cost $880 million, with 60 percent of the overall funding flowing from the federal government.

is this a misprint, or the cost to extend it to Oregon City? I haven't seen this almost a billion $$$ figure before!

NJD

Mar 28, 2007, 8:28 PM

It must be the new combined eastside streetcar/ Milwaukie MAX /bus rapid transit to Oregon City, plus the new bridge cost. $50-60mil/mile MAX, $20-30mil/mile streetcar, $2-25 mil/mile BRT, + $200-300 mil bridge.

Milwaukie MAX is in consideration for $250 mil from the state, which is roughly 40% of its stand alone cost of $550 mil (minus the streetcar and bus projects). the south corridor project split the expensive add-ons into both phases; the downtown mall revamp ($200+ mil) is being built with 205 MAX, and the new caruthers bridge ($200+ mil) is going with Milwaukie MAX making both projects $550+ mil each instead of $300-350 without the mall and bridge work. The streetcar and bus work adds the rest of the $880 overall price tag for phase 2. so, the overall south corridor projects price tag is actually closer to $1.4 bil, which is about the same as what we should expect from a new columbia river LRT bridge and full Vancouver loop from I-5 to I-205 (as far as distance/scope and add-on costs).

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

Trimet and Metro are smart to phase in costs like this... Trimet is even putting the cost of adding additional MAX vehicles to their fleet to make a downtown transit mall circulator.. is that needed? probably not, but it's a great way to get the feds to pay for 60% of the cost of these additional *new* type of rail cars for the rest of the system to use... (and maybe retire some of the old high-floor cars...)

zilfondel

Mar 28, 2007, 10:55 PM

Their light rail, currently being built, has very little presence next to I-5.

I was actually referring to all the bus pullouts you pass by on the freeways in the Seattle area. Always struck me as odd places to pick up a bus, as walking next to a freeway = suicide. Perhaps why I never say anyone waiting at them? :sly:

PacificNW

Mar 28, 2007, 11:21 PM

Ah...sorry with the wrong response...

360Rich

Mar 29, 2007, 3:31 PM

Chalk another one up for MAX. While 26 was closed due to the landslide, MAX kept moving, and traffic backed up like this

http://www.oregonlive.com/cgi-bin/prxy/photogalleries/nph-cache.cgi/cache=3000;/olive/images/3342/thu.jpg

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1175138739249430.xml&coll=7

360Rich

Mar 29, 2007, 3:55 PM

Planners try to connect dots between I-5, 99W

Traffic - Officials study several ideas for a new highway link to keep the Tualatin area moving
Thursday, March 29, 2007
MY-THUAN TRAN

Planners are trying to solve the puzzle of where to build a connector from Interstate 5 to Oregon 99W, a critical piece in unfolding the maze of traffic that snakes through fast-growing Tualatin, Sherwood and Wilsonville.

More than 600 people attended open house meetings in November and December, marking up maps with colored pens depicting routes for the connector.

Planners are screening the ideas that came out of those meetings, whittling them to a few alternatives by May, said Russell Knoebel, Washington County's representative on the project management team.

Some of the ideas being explored:

A connector between 99W in southern Sherwood and I-5 north of Wilsonville.

A connector between 99W in north Sherwood and I-5 north of Wilsonville.

Extending a leg of Interstate 205 west, which would connect to 99W in north Sherwood.

Creating a "hybrid" of road improvements on Southwest Tualatin-Sherwood Road to turn it into a state highway connecting I-5 and 99W.

Many complications stand in the way of the connector, including a price tag predicted to be in the hundreds of millions and the difficulty of determining a route that could cut through developed sections of Tualatin, Sherwood and Wilsonville.

Tualatin Mayor Lou Ogden stressed the need for a connector. "If you build the connector, when your kids will be living here, the area will be just as congested as today," Ogden said to members of the Tualatin Chamber of Commerce during a presentation by Knoebel last week. "If you do not build it, it will be congested longer, and you will strangle the region. The region won't be able to be viable."

Planners have explored a route from I-5 to 99W for the past few decades, but many homes, stores and industrial companies have popped up in the southwest suburbs, eliminating some potential routes.

The number of cars traveling east and west across Tualatin, Wilsonville and Sherwood is expected to double by 2030, Knoebel said. Traffic on Tualatin-Sherwood Road and Southwest Boones Ferry Road near Wilsonville also is projected to double.

The already-congested area also will see more truck traffic in coming decades as industrial development in the project area swells and as growth continues in Marion and Yamhill counties.

Another hurdle is balancing the competing interests of Tualatin, which thinks the connector will alleviate traffic congestion on Tualatin-Sherwood Road, and Wilsonville, which is concerned that traffic from a connector would spill into the city's interchanges.

After the alternatives are chosen and fleshed out, public hearings will be held in spring 2008, Knoebel said, and planners hope to determine a direct route after that.

http://www.oregonlive.com/swweeklytts/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/metro_southwest_news/1175028903150750.xml&coll=7

zilfondel

Mar 29, 2007, 8:02 PM

Wait, there was a landslide?! WTF?! Why didn't I ever hear about it?

Too strange... :shrug:

pdxman

Mar 29, 2007, 9:57 PM

Is ODOT widening i-205 from oregon city to the i-5 interchange? The ODOT website is not very clear on projects so i thought i'd ask here. I drove by today and it looked like they were making room for a third lane--which would be nice. The widening of i-5 south of salem also looks closer to being finished.

MarkDaMan

Mar 30, 2007, 1:07 AM

Wait, there was a landslide?! WTF?! Why didn't I ever hear about it?

Too strange...

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/L_IMAGE.1118d385967.93.88.fa.d0.c4e2b8b.gif

yeppers, a pretty substantial landslide that blocked all 4 lanes of 26 for 8 hours. The landslide was actually caught on one of those ODOT camera, almost took out an ambulance had it not been for the quick swerve...the story, pics and video are here

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_032807_news_hwy_26_landslide_.c21364c.html

tworivers

Apr 1, 2007, 11:15 PM

Not much new, but interesting tidbits... possible extension being considered to OC? And perhaps we'll see simultaneous OHSU campus/MAX construction?
I hope to see a ped/bike crossing included in the new bridge. That would be a fantastic connection between SE and South Waterfront, and by extension Lair Hill/SW and SE.

pdf here (http://www.oregonlive.com/cgi-bin/prxy/accessor/nph-repository-cache.cgi/base/pdf_captions/1175318712226060.pdf). Includes new streetcar loop.

Milwaukie leaders, residents warm to light-rail proposal

MAX - With new city leadership, shifting demographics and improved route plans, the once-unpopular idea is now progressing

Sunday, April 01, 2007
JAMES MAYER

After a decade of controversy and rejection, MAX to Milwaukie is back on track.

And this time, officials won't be greeted with "pitchforks at the door," says Metro Councilor Brian Newman.

Southeast Portland residents have long sought light rail, but Clackamas County scuttled the idea twice. In Milwaukie, the mayor and two councilors were recalled for supporting light rail. Opponents focused on the route, or the proposed tax increases, but they also objected to Portland-style urban life, complete with mass transit and high-density housing encroaching on their community.

It's different this time around. New leaders want light rail.

"I feel we are farther along than we've ever been," said Milwaukie Mayor Jim Bernard, who appeared at a recent TriMet board meeting to make sure the Milwaukie MAX line wasn't overlooked in all the buzz over a possible eastside streetcar line.

Opposition has melted because planners came up with a better project that doesn't cut through historic neighborhoods, Bernard said. The community has changed as well.

Bernard, who operates the city's downtown farmers market, sees a demographic shift in his customers each Sunday. "They're younger, they use mass transit, there's more higher income levels, they are interested in natural foods," he said.

Other signs: The trendy Waldorf School moved to town, bringing with it high-income families. And new housing is being built downtown.

Some route issues remain, and the siting of a new MAX-only rail bridge over the Willamette River between OMSI and the South Waterfront area is still up in the air.

But the project could be built as soon as 2011, at a cost of about $850 million.

The next step is a Metro study beginning in April to update an alignment approved in 2003, including analysis of the 6.5-mile project's ridership, economic development opportunities and environmental impact.

The project began life in the mid-1990s as TriMet sought a south to north MAX line connecting Clackamas and Clark counties.

In 1994, TriMet voters approved a bond measure for the Oregon part of the project, but Clark County voters rejected funding for their part. In 1996, Oregon voters turned down lottery-backed bonds for the project. In 1998, TriMet voters turned down yet another funding package.

After the 1998 loss, Metro and TriMet focused on expanding light rail in Portland, where voters supported it, and studying everything but light rail to improve transit in Clackamas County.

But light rail remained alive. In 2001, the Milwaukie Neighborhood Association came up with a plan to support light rail if it avoided damaging neighborhoods and met other conditions.

Officials were skeptical. Metro Councilor Newman said both TriMet General Manager Fred Hansen and Metro Presiding Officer Mike Burton weren't sure they wanted to go through another bruising light-rail fight.

The current proposal was approved by Metro, TriMet and local governments involved in 2003, without the acrimony of past efforts.

The project is not funded, but officials don't expect to seek a tax increase from voters. They are eyeing $250 million in bonding capacity that will become available in 2009 when the lottery bonds for the westside MAX will be paid off. That money could go a long way toward meeting the local match required for federal funding.

The first phase, extending MAX along Interstate 205 to Clackamas Town Center, is under construction.

Milwaukie is next. The plan calls for a line that would begin at Portland State University where the new transit mall line will end, cross the river south of OMSI, and head along Southeast 17th Avenue and McLoughlin Boulevard to Milwaukie. It would then go east from North Main Street to the Tillamook branch railroad tracks, ending at Lake Road. The plan features a large park-and-ride lot and 11 stations.

Opposition from North Main Street industrial leaders has prompted study of an alternative route farther east, with a terminus at Kellogg Lake. But officials dropped the lake site because it was donated to the city 15 years ago for exclusive use as a park. Officials also are studying extending the line beyond Lake Road.

The river crossing is the other big unresolved issue.

A lot has changed in the South Waterfront since the original bridge alignment, and planners want to make sure the bridge makes the right connection with a planned major expansion of Oregon Health & Science University.

Transit advocate Jim Howell says the new bridge is a bad idea. Howell prefers to keep light rail on the east side of Portland, with major stations at the Hawthorne and Morrison bridge heads, and at the Rose Quarter.

He says it would be cheaper and provide faster service than building a new bridge and sending trains into downtown.

But officials argue that forcing commuters to transfer to a bus or MAX at the Rose Quarter to get downtown would discourage ridership. The new bridge also could carry the proposed eastside streetcar, which could help share the cost.

James Mayer: 503-294-4109; jimmayer@news.oregonian.com

EastPDX

Apr 2, 2007, 1:12 AM

der Reisender

Apr 2, 2007, 1:46 AM

wouldn't the cost of moving 26 traffic from Ross Island onto some type of tunnel so we could put MAX on the bridge cancel out the cost-savings over building a new bridge? i like the idea of the easy streetcar/tram transfers, but don't know if that is worth it

other issues i can see with ross island would be the mess that is the westside approach and getting the trains from powell up onto the railroad overpass by 17th on the eastside. seems like it would take a lot of work while drastically reducing capacity on the bridge for cars and the process of designing all the changes could add time and ultimately money to the cost.

east

i'm a fan of the milwaukie line and think it should be built next, and with an eye on running it to OC someday. the only area i really wonder about is the connection from southeast to the city center, via Riverplace or SoWa, or if it should just stay on the eastside. I'm not entirely set on a particular plan there, but i do think if it crosses to downtown, we should get a new bridge for it

eastpdx, i do think the hawthorne bridge for the streetcar is a good idea, esp since hawthorne itself should get a streetcar line of its own down the road.

NJD

Apr 2, 2007, 1:52 AM

People seem so wed to their original wishes/desires (new bridge) that the most cost effective (use the bridges we have) and best system configuration (MAX stop above the Tram/Streetcar Terminus) doesn't see the light of day.

the reason for not consdering this proposal is the insane amount of other work that has to be done before this could be reality. Maybe in 20-25 years after the 99W, US 26 and Ore. 43 ramps/ are reconfigured thru Corb/Lair Hill neighborhood as City Council wants, after US 26 has direct access to I-5 thru tunnels or new ramps as City Council wants, after the Marquam Bridge is rerouted thru a tunnel from SW downtown to the Rose Quarter as City Council wants...

So this "best system" approach could not even be a viable alternative until 2030 after $10-12 billion is spent on other projects. if you propose doing all the work now with the CRC, Sunrise, 99 Connector, etc... projects all looking for funds that currently don't exist... good luck.

I am for this project, and a new transit only bridge makes sense for practicality, routing and cost effectiveness.

brandonpdx

Apr 2, 2007, 4:27 AM

For the new bridge to be a true success they need to incorporate great pedestrian and bicycle right of ways on the bridge.
To go one step further and to create a truly magnificent and unique bridge they could model it after the Pontiveccio in Florence, Italy. The bridge would be a tourist attraction in its own rite. It could also be a creative way to fund the bridge. The rents from the shops on the bridge could pay for a portion of the bridge.
The concept could go even a little further if they were to somehow incorporate condos or offices on the bridge. Could you imagine the views and the prices they could fetch!?

zilfondel

Apr 2, 2007, 6:00 AM

We do need a second MAX Crossing until we go to subways. I would ask that the Ross Island Bridge be looked at for the Milwaukie MAX line (Powell/Foster/Damascus too). What would be the cost? Could the US 26 traffic be moved to a I-5/US 26 tunnel system?

And what would be the cost for retrofitting the Hawthrone Bridge for the Streetcar Loop? It goes right past OMSI, right?

What I like the best about using the Ross Island for MAX is the easy connection it makes to the Tram and the Streetcar line.

If it pencils out that we save money on the two crossings and can bank the differences toward a tunnel system for I-5/US 26, I would jump at an agreement with the Feds and the State.

People seem so wed to their original wishes/desires (new bridge) that the most cost effective (use the bridges we have) and best system configuration (MAX stop above the Tram/Streetcar Terminus) doesn't see the light of day.

EP

I don't even want to imagine how much money it would cost to move 26 into a tunnel - you're talking a good 1/4 mile steep approach on either side of it just to get back up to the existing street leve, with the tunneling required on the west side alone and the spaghetti mess of existing onramps, would likely cost upwards of a billion dollars. It wouldn't be a straight-shot.

Not to mention the fact that the current road from downtown to the approach to the Ross Island Bridge is a twisty, curvy mess. The MAX would have to crawl through it at 15 mph, otherwise it too would need hundreds of millions to tunnel through the CTLH neighborhood - if it's even possible. And forget actually connecting to South Waterfront, the Ross Island Bridge is a good 40-60 feet above it! You'd need an elevator to connect them as well.

Then once on the eastside... you miss 2 stops: OMSI and Clinton... the list goes on. MAX isn't setup to run through the neighborhood very much like what you are thinking.

=================

Back to reality...

What the current Trimet proposal is to do is create a new multi-modal bridge just south of the Marquam, and run the MAX along the existing railroad mainline and then down 17th to Milwaukie. It's fast, with widely-spaced stops to serve key points - basically a surface light metro.

I am very much looking forward to close-in Southeast Portland getting that stop on Clinton; it'll be an awesome link for us to have a direct line into downtown. I just wish they'd drop the Lincoln street stop on the westside, as it is redundant when you consider the streetcar stops 3 blocks to the north.

Here's a map I made as a suggestion for a new, cheaper and faster route for Trimet:

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

MitchE

Apr 3, 2007, 4:22 AM

http://www.sinecosine.org/forums/TransitMall/P1010823.JPG

pdxman

Apr 3, 2007, 4:35 AM

Whoa, thats quick. I'm not so hot about the concrete, i wish they would used pavers like they did on yamhill and morrison. Probably cost too much...

MitchE

Apr 3, 2007, 4:58 AM

^ It probably has more to do with the fact that buses will be driving on these tracks everyday and cobblestone probably doesn't make sense for that.

cab

Apr 3, 2007, 2:32 PM

This is another compromise due to adding the auto lane. If the MAX ran on the left side, buses on the right it could have used cobblestone.

I'll say it again, this is a bad project and when the weaving MAX trains don't work, Trimet will unfairly take the blame. This project has the potential to kill any new lines being built in the region if it doesn't work well on the Mall. People will blame it rather then the business pushed auto lane. This has the potential to take down an entire generation of transit planners and city leaders (Jack Bogs dream) all because the business community had to have their auto lane.

MarkDaMan

Apr 3, 2007, 3:15 PM

or a revamped mall with new shops, new businesses, new hotels, and a successful rail line could for generations encourage mass transit, especially light rail, as a redevelopement tool for now and many years into the future. Look at the hundreds now, of streetcar miles proposed throughout the nation because of our successful project that has been railed as too slow, too inconvenient.

I have worries but even in a worst case scenario I think this project will be hailed as a success, even if further concessions need to be made by auto lane and bus drivers once kinks, if there are some, become apparent.

cab

Apr 3, 2007, 3:36 PM

Thanks Mark for the optimism and I hope you're right and I'm wrong. Working near the Mall, I just hate watching them cut trees and rip out sidewalk space. Its so hard to get space for pedestrians, it just seems a step back destroying beautiful unique urban evironments for more auto infrastructure. And after seeing what was done to front ave (does it not look like a highway seperating a park now? Terrible road material choices) I've lost a little faith in the city planning leadership, they seem to be bending to the road widening crowd a bit.

mcbaby

Apr 3, 2007, 5:47 PM

will there be any brick work on the new streets or just at the intersections?

MarkDaMan

Apr 10, 2007, 3:48 PM

West side onboard for risky commuter rail ride
The $117.4 million suburb-to-suburb line is one of the first in the nation
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
MY-THUAN TRAN
The Oregonian

Greta Sciupac says she regrets her recent move to Beaverton while she's stuck in traffic on her way to work at Xerox in Wilsonville. With no way to avoid the exasperatingly long commute on Oregon 217 and Interstate 5, she is surrounded for nearly an hour by thousands of drivers who honk, pointlessly.

Sciupac is holding her breath for the day she can hitch a ride on the Washington County Commuter Rail, which will zip thousands of commuters from Beaverton to Wilsonville in 27 minutes, with stops at Washington Square, Tigard and Tualatin. The rail, which will run every 30 minutes during morning and evening weekday rush hours, is slated to open September 2008.

As one of the nation's first suburb-to-suburb commuter rails, its success relies on residents in Portland's westside suburbs transforming from gas-guzzling drivers to transit-savvy riders.

The 14.7-mile rail line has the elements of success, said state Rep. Jerry Krummel, R-Wilsonville, one of the rail's earliest supporters. It links popular job centers in an area stymied by jammed highways that will only worsen as Washington County's population -- at 500,000 -- is expected to increase to 900,000 by 2030.

"People will take commuter rail when it's just as convenient" as using their cars, Krummel said. "They might realize it takes just as long to get to work, but they can be reading or looking out the window instead of wanting to pull out their hair."

With a $117.4 million price tag, the stakes are high. If commuter rail doesn't work in Portland's suburbs, Krummel said, it's not going to work elsewhere.

About 1,500 commuters are projected to ride the rail each day in the first year, expected to increase to 4,000 by 2020, according to TriMet, the lead planning agency. But with more than 110,000 vehicles a day passing Oregon 217 and I-5, that translates to a small, possibly unnoticeable, reduction in traffic.

As the rail gears up for a grand opening in 17 months, it's hit some eleventh-hour snags.

Tualatin's plans call for the station to be constructed in the middle of an already thriving downtown with clogged intersections. Haggen Food & Pharmacy representatives have rallied more than 1,200 customers against the station's proposed location, saying it will lose business as more cars stack up at the store's main entrance to get to the station.

But TriMet officials maintain that traffic will not be severely affected when the trains are up and running with plans to coordinate green traffic signals with train departures, said Mary Fetsch, TriMet spokeswoman.

Construction at Tualatin's station will be delayed since a city hearing to inspect the station's plans was pushed back almost three months, said Fetsch. And if Haggen or other property owners appeal the city's decision -- or if the city imposes additional requirements -- construction could be moved back even further.

But Tualatin and other cities linking the rail also have seen a chance to transform old buildings and empty land near the proposed stations into bustling centers where people can live, shop and work.

For Wilsonville, the home of big companies such as Xerox, Sysco and Mentor Graphics, the rail will connect commuters to its vital job centers. The city's bus system, SMART, promises to deliver every rail commuter to work within 15 minutes, said Steve Dickey, the city's transit director. In addition, SMART will connect the rail with Villebois, a development a mile away, that will eventually have 2,500 homes and 7,000 residents.

With the prospect of the commuter rail stopping at the heart of downtown Tigard on Main Street, a group of residents in 2004 pushed to spruce up what they call "Tigard's front door."

Commuter rail will spur redevelopment in downtown, said Mayor Craig Dirksen, helping to transform the sleepy downtown into what he calls "the Pearl District on a suburban scale," a place thriving with condos and rowhouses, more stores, restaurants and offices.

My-Thuan Tran: 503-294-5976; mythuantran@news.oregonian.com.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1176175528181450.xml&coll=7

Dougall5505

Apr 11, 2007, 2:42 AM

http://flickr.com/photos/portland-pete/
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/133/378979093_a65ee596ba.jpg?v=0
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/174/454340565_6ace044347.jpg?v=0
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/185/454348721_e9525b8f91.jpg?v=0

NJD

Apr 11, 2007, 4:13 AM

not much new, but here are the latest alignments being considered (sorry for large images):
http://images.tribe.net/tribe/upload/photo/7fe/6f4/7fe6f449-1dea-44f4-b31c-6b69ef605924

http://images.tribe.net/tribe/upload/photo/8d9/ec5/8d9ec56a-82a4-4861-9ef3-a98a8b2bfdc9

old alignment down SW River Parkway and the OHSU proposed alignment down the old Willamette trolley ROW and Meade Street:
http://images.tribe.net/tribe/upload/photo/5ef/ad1/5efad153-b9bf-4cdd-b71c-e8b1f3c2fb95
(note the streetcar stops through campus extended down River Parkway instead of current alignment)

tworivers

Apr 11, 2007, 5:28 AM

First of all, I had no idea that they were already north of Burnside. I wonder how much ahead of schedule and under budget this line will finish at...

Regarding NJD's post:
I wonder what Tri-met is thinking about the effect on OMSI of having the bridge cross at Meade. I guess it would just be a short walk up the riverfront past the new storage towers to get to the museum? Or transfer to the streetcar? Seems like a possibly awkward connection, though.

I also wonder how the MAX tracks will interact with the streetcar tracks west of Moody, where they'll join up, and whether or not they might be elevated across Moody and between the campus and the Zidell property, which will presumably be under development around then.

Also, the closer the MAX gets to S Waterfront, the more redundant the whole streetcar line down there begins to look.

And lastly, I wonder what the Streetcar people are thinking about the southern end of their loop being farther south than currently-budgeted OMSI terminus. Seems like that might reduce the utility of the whole inner eastside loop if it sags much farther south, and has to go through the new campus before it even gets to Riverplace, particularly considering the speed at which the streetcar tends to travel...

anp

Apr 11, 2007, 2:04 PM

Regarding NJD's post:
I wonder what Tri-met is thinking about the effect on OMSI of having the bridge cross at Meade. I guess it would just be a short walk up the riverfront past the new storage towers to get to the museum? Or transfer to the streetcar? Seems like a possibly awkward connection, though.

I agree that an OMSI connection to MAX would be ideal. Even if the MAX bridge aligns with Meade on the west side, why couldn't it angle northward as it crosses the river, roughly parallel to the Marquam Bridge? Then it would land at Carruthers or Division Place right next to OMSI. On the other hand, if the MAX bridge were to parrallel the Ross Island Bridge, it would land much farther south on the east side.

Pearl_Steve

Apr 11, 2007, 2:59 PM

Few more pics of max construction in NW:

At 5th and Glisan:
http://zmrhal.com/pics/glisan1.JPG

At 5th and Flanders:
http://zmrhal.com/pics/flanders1.JPG

at 5th and Everett:
http://zmrhal.com/pics/everett1.JPG

NJD

Apr 11, 2007, 3:17 PM

I wonder what Tri-met is thinking about the effect on OMSI of having the bridge cross at Meade.

Remember, the last diagram I made is based on OHSU's description of where they want MAX to go, the other 2 are unaltered diagrams. Trimet has labeled the area a study area, nothing more. I doubt OHSU will get exactly what they want, nor will we see the 2003 LPA design in the end. The streetcar route definitely makes the MAX stop on Lincoln seem redundant, but there is quite a bit of ROW along the willamette trolley route that would make a SoWa connection easily and cheaply feasible for MAX (with streetcar making the shorter trip stops). I think the east riverbank end of the new bridge will still connect closer to OMSI regardless of the west bank alignment.

I'm glad to see downtown is coming along, thanks for the update Pearl_Steve

Side note: I just noticed that the new terminus south of Milwaukie stops right at the old OC interurban ROW. I think this is a smart move for a future OC MAX alignment. Whether it goes down the old ROW or down McLoughlin we may not know for 10-20 years, but at least they are thinking ahead.

zilfondel

Apr 11, 2007, 9:16 PM

I wonder what Tri-met is thinking about the effect on OMSI of having the bridge cross at Meade. I guess it would just be a short walk up the riverfront past the new storage towers to get to the museum?

I also wonder how the MAX tracks will interact with the streetcar tracks west of Moody, where they'll join up, and whether or not they might be elevated across Moody and between the campus and the Zidell property, which will presumably be under development around then.

Also, the closer the MAX gets to S Waterfront, the more redundant the whole streetcar line down there begins to look.

And lastly, I wonder what the Streetcar people are thinking about the southern end of their loop being farther south than currently-budgeted OMSI terminus. Seems like that might reduce the utility of the whole inner eastside loop if it sags much farther south, and has to go through the new campus before it even gets to Riverplace, particularly considering the speed at which the streetcar tends to travel...

Exactly. I was starting to think that having a MAX connection to SOWA would be helpful, except for the fact that the streetcar already goes there (and could offer an easy transfer between the two in Riverplace), and by moving the bridge further to the south, it will skip inner SW Portland and OMSI via elimination of the OMSI and Clinton stops.

Not to mention fuck up the whole Streetcar loop on the eastside, since it will have to come back over the river by sharing this new MAX bridge.

Lastly, wtf is up with the Lincoln stop? There is absolutely nothing at this location to warrant a stop - the only thing it will do is slow the MAX down by a minute or two!

I won't even go into placing a bridge over a bird nesting wildlife reserve (Ross Island Bridge), while ruining the views of the condo owners and CTLH neighbors (yet another obstacle to block their views!).

asher519

Apr 12, 2007, 6:41 AM

my favorite thing about construction of this project is walking over the "bridges" everyday :D

MarkDaMan

Apr 12, 2007, 3:10 PM

is there not a couplet thread?

One-way Burnside gets 1st OK
Couplet - After six hours of debate, the City Council votes to do preliminary work to pair the street with a one-way Northwest Couch
Thursday, April 12, 2007
ANNA GRIFFIN
The Oregonian

In a move that could radically reshape downtown -- if the price is right -- the Portland City Council gave the go-ahead Wednesday to turn bustling West Burnside into a one-way street.

City Council members voted unanimously to begin early engineering work to convert Burnside and neighboring Northwest Couch streets into one-way streets from Second Avenue to just east of Interstate 405. Traffic would head east on Burnside and west on Couch. A streetcar would run from the Burnside Bridge to Northwest 24th Avenue, although city leaders haven't decided how long the new line will stay on Couch. It could eventually extend over the river all the way to Hollywood.

The total cost: at least $80 million, money the City Council hasn't found yet.

Council members voted last year to convert Burnside and Couch into a couplet from the waterfront to 14th Avenue at a cost of at least $16.2 million. But the western half of the couplet concept, designed to ease the flow of traffic through downtown Portland, has proven more controversial.

No one denies that West Burnside is a traffic nightmare, home to four of the city's 10 most dangerous intersections for pedestrians and an obstacle to carrying the urban renewal successes of the Pearl District to the Old Town neighborhood.

Adams and transportation engineers say that simply improving Burnside with more crosswalks, new pavement and additional turn lanes isn't enough. City planners and members of the Planning Commission, an advisory group, disagree.

The debate boils down to this basic question: Do the potential benefits of the couplet on Burnside outweigh the damage it could do to Couch? Judging from Wednesday's debate, which stretched almost six hours, the answer depends on which street you live, work and shop on.

On the Burnside side, developers argued that adding mass transit and easing traffic on the street by making it one way will lead to hundreds of millions of dollars in new investment. Business owners told of keeping their Burnside doors locked to make it harder for thieves and transients to get in. Homelessness advocates said their clients risk their lives every time they cross the street to get a meal or a bed for the night.

On the Couch side, young girls in plaid school jumpers worried that noise from additional traffic will drown out their teachers and smog will spoil their playgrounds. Small-business owners warned that converting the street will end the economic miracle that has turned the former industrial zone into a European-style collection of cafes and boutiques. Condo owners complained that the couplet will ruin the pedestrian-friendly feel of their neighborhood.

In all, 80 people signed up to testify. "Eighty?" asked Mayor Tom Potter when the city clerk called out the tally. "Eight-oh?"

Adams initially called for the couplet to stretch to Northwest 19th Avenue, over I-405. But a chorus of complaints from schoolchildren, parents and teachers at the Cathedral School, on Northwest 17th Avenue and Couch, convinced Commissioner Erik Sten that traffic should be averted away from Couch sooner. Adams agreed.

The City Council first approved the couplet -- without the streetcar -- in 2002 under Mayor Vera Katz but later shelved the idea for more study. When Adams took over the Portland Office of Transportation in 2004, he restarted the conversation and added the streetcar.

Simply rebuilding West Burnside could cost $20 million, according to planners' estimates. Adding the couplet and the streetcar raises the price to at least $81 million. Adams acknowledged that's a "low confidence" estimate that probably will increase, prompting unpleasant comparisons to the skyrocketing costs of the new aerial tram, which went from $15 million to $57.5 million between early designs and the end of construction.

But Adams says this project is different in one big respect: Council members can still change their minds and will keep closer watch on the money. They voted Wednesday to pay for just 35 percent of the design work. Once that's complete, about a year from now, engineers will present better cost estimates and a plan for paying for the work, and the mayor and city commissioners will decide whether to continue.

Those assurances were little comfort to Potter and Commissioner Dan Saltzman. Potter wondered how the couplet fits in with the city's other transportation priorities and how the city will find the money to convert Burnside and Couch and finish other projects, such as extending the streetcar to east Portland and taking light rail to Milwaukie and Lake Oswego.

In a compromise, Adams agreed with Saltzman's suggestion to allow engineers to design simpler alternatives for improving Burnside at the same time they're planning the couplet. That way, if the couplet proves too costly, the city will still be ready with needed changes to make Portland's main street more attractive, more accessible and safer.

In all, council members agreed Wednesday to spend $3.1 million: $2.6 million planning the couplet and another $500,000 on other alternatives for Burnside.

Anna Griffin: 503-294-5988; annagriffin@news.oregonian.com.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/117635741576420.xml&coll=7

Snowden352

Apr 12, 2007, 4:14 PM

HA! I got the scoop on THIS at least!

(from the Statesman Journal)
Transportation
Portland-Salem rail idea may be studied
April 12, 2007

A state task force may study the extension of a commuter rail service from some of Portland's suburbs to Salem and Keizer.

The House Workforce and Economic Development Committee, on a 6-1 vote Wednesday, sent House Bill 2472 to a vote of the full House. The lone dissenter was Rep. Fred Girod, R-Lyons.

A 15-mile line between Beaverton and Wilsonville is scheduled to start running in the fall of 2008. The bill by Rep. Mitch Greenlick, D-Portland, and others proposes a study of extending it 30 miles south to Salem.

-- Peter Wong

cab

Apr 12, 2007, 4:35 PM

I wish they would study a Vancouver to Portland line. This is one place that transit could cut travel time by an extreme amount during rush hour. Done right you can get the travel time in the 15 minute range from DT to DT.

MarkDaMan

Apr 12, 2007, 6:09 PM

^but that would kill the proposed MAX to Vancouver, which will benefit much more of the city than just the downtown as it can be expanded more easily, is more frequent, and encourages additional density along the 2 to 3 times more stations than a commuter rail would have. It is a bit slower though.

MarkDaMan

Apr 12, 2007, 10:25 PM

TriMet ups fares as part of 2008 budget
Portland Business Journal - 10:05 AM PDT Thursday, April 12, 2007

TriMet unveiled a $741 million budget for 2008 that will add a nickel to fares to offset inflation.

The budget covers both operations and capital projects such as the I-205/Portland Mall MAX Light Rail extension.

Highlights include:

* $1.7 million to begin replacing ticket vending machines along the Eastside MAX line with versions that accept debit and credit cards only.
* $1.1 million to retrofit 70 buses with new exhaust filters. The new equipment will reduce most emissions by 90 percent. TriMet is currently retrofitting 84 additional buses.
* $3.7 million to buy 44 vehicles for the Accessible Transportation Program. Of the 44, 13 are to expand current service.
* $15.6 million for diesel fuel, an increase of 5 percent. TriMet said it buys 6.6 million gallons of diesel/biodiesel blend for its fleet. The budget is based on a price of $2.31 per gallon.

"The budget allows us to continue construction on our expanding regional rail system in downtown Portland, I-205 corridor and Washington County, have more environmentally friendly buses, and deal with fluctuations in diesel prices," said Fred Hansen, TriMet's general manager.

The TriMet board is set to adopt the budget on June 27, with the budget year starting on July 1. The five-cent fare increase takes effect on Sept. 1.
http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2007/04/09/daily24.html?t=printable