Portland Transit | TriMet/Mass Transit News

[hat]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

Very optimistic and only if everything runs like clockwork. Plus add 3 more stops east of the Rose Quarter and one more west of Pioneer Square at more than 2 minutes a pop, and you're already at 20+ minutes. So if you're commuting from the eastside to Galleria or Pioneer Square, you're already adding 10+ minutes more both ways to your commute than it should reasonably take. And that's assuming your trip ends or starts in Downtown, not always the case.

In a real sense all of us are being optimistic. There will be no subway downtown until it is proven by data that it is unfeasible to run any more trains on either mall. Unfortunately, this relies on the SW corridor to be built as LRT as well as the Powell corridor. No one in Metro or Tri-met has indicated any interest in a MAX on Powell. Thus, it is overwhelmingly implausible for a subway to happen in the next decade or more.

This is the key. A MAX on Powell to 205 would have decisive effects on the future of the system. It is mind-boggling why this is not a top priority. I encourage people to voice their opinion to the Powell-Division corridor before we miss this chance.

[dubu]

they could make the sw line be a subway from pioneer courthouse square to multnoma village. turn the yellow line into a streetcar, then have the powell line.

that would be what i would make it

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

Very optimistic and only if everything runs like clockwork. Plus add 3 more stops east of the Rose Quarter and one more west of Pioneer Square at more than 2 minutes a pop, and you're already at 20+ minutes. So if you're commuting from the eastside to Galleria or Pioneer Square, you're already adding 10+ minutes more both ways to your commute than it should reasonably take. And that's assuming your trip ends or starts in Downtown, not always the case.

Most light rail commutes are to downtown, which that time frame isn't unrealistic, though I still think your number might be a bit high.

Though if one is commuting by car, you have to also include parking time. The amount of time it took me to get to the Smart Park on 10th and park on the roof would have taken me just as much time as it would have to ride in from Lloyd to the Galleria.

[bvpcvm]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

Most light rail commutes are to downtown

I don't know where you got this information, but if true, isn't that a problem? I mean, I bet there are tons of Intel and Nike employees who have quaint, very expensive houses on the east side and who do not use MAX to commute. One of the reasons could be how long it takes to go through downtown. MAX's overall slowness is certainly a frustration to me whenever I use it. (Since the day it opened I've thought that limiting it to 55mph along the Banfield is an excellent ad for driving, since most of the day people are zipping past trains and seeing that MAX is relatively slow.)

Originally Posted by urbanlife

Though if one is commuting by car, you have to also include parking time. The amount of time it took me to get to the Smart Park on 10th and park on the roof would have taken me just as much time as it would have to ride in from Lloyd to the Galleria.

Do people really take time to park into consideration? (I've never commuted downtown by car, so I don't know.) I've never heard anyone comment about including time to park in their commute, whereas I have heard people mention having to include time to get to a MAX station/bus stop. I just have the feeling that when you drive you tend to just think of the time behind the wheel as the amount of time your commute takes.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by bvpcvm

I don't know where you got this information, but if true, isn't that a problem? I mean, I bet there are tons of Intel and Nike employees who have quaint, very expensive houses on the east side and who do not use MAX to commute. One of the reasons could be how long it takes to go through downtown. MAX's overall slowness is certainly a frustration to me whenever I use it. (Since the day it opened I've thought that limiting it to 55mph along the Banfield is an excellent ad for driving, since most of the day people are zipping past trains and seeing that MAX is relatively slow.)



Do people really take time to park into consideration? (I've never commuted downtown by car, so I don't know.) I've never heard anyone comment about including time to park in their commute, whereas I have heard people mention having to include time to get to a MAX station/bus stop. I just have the feeling that when you drive you tend to just think of the time behind the wheel as the amount of time your commute takes.

You would have to ask those Intel workers living on the east side, though during rush hour times no one is zipping from the eastside to the westside. The trains don't deal with this same traffic.

That is the problem, people like to say it only took me 15 minutes to drive downtown, so it was faster than the train. But people forget to add that it took them 10-15 minutes to find a parking spot, then the cost of that parking spot makes the $5 round trip via train a much better option.

If there is a realistic demand to provide a rail line that basically skips downtown so that people could commute from the eastside to the westside, then we will see the push for such a rail line. Though as it is someone could ride the train from the eastside to the westside, but then they have to take a shuttle bus to the Intel office.

[bvpcvm]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

That is the problem, people like to say it only took me 15 minutes to drive downtown, so it was faster than the train. But people forget to add that it took them 10-15 minutes to find a parking spot, then the cost of that parking spot makes the $5 round trip via train a much better option.

Exactly. People don't think of travel via and travel via transit in the same way.

Originally Posted by urbanlife

If there is a realistic demand to provide a rail line that basically skips downtown so that people could commute from the eastside to the westside, then we will see the push for such a rail line.

I'm certainly not suggesting there should be a line to bypass downtown. That would be ridiculous. What I'm saying is that we need a way to serve downtown without getting bogged down like trains currently do. Whether that's 1) a subway 2) elevated tracks 3) closing streets to build two-block-long stations or 4) some combination of these, is a question for engineers (and, I suppose, the plebes).

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by bvpcvm

Exactly. People don't think of travel via and travel via transit in the same way.



I'm certainly not suggesting there should be a line to bypass downtown. That would be ridiculous. What I'm saying is that we need a way to serve downtown without getting bogged down like trains currently do. Whether that's 1) a subway 2) elevated tracks 3) closing streets to build two-block-long stations or 4) some combination of these, is a question for engineers (and, I suppose, the plebes).

In Portland's case it is none of the above. You might get lucky and live to when they are calling for an alternative like subway. The MAX is designed the way it is designed because they felt like if it was at street level then it would be visually noticeable and easy to access. Plus most rail systems are primarily designed to service a downtown.

With Portland, it doesn't make sense to sink money into a tunnel to shave off a few minutes through downtown so it would be a few minutes faster for someone that might be commuting through downtown.

If there is one thing that I learned while living in New York is that sometimes it just takes forever to commute on the subway. If you are headed to the the Bronx or Queens, then you might as well sit down cause it is gonna be a while because you gotta go through Manhattan.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by bvpcvm

Do people really take time to park into consideration? (I've never commuted downtown by car, so I don't know.)

To be fair, most people are pretty stupid when it comes to managing their time. Of course one should factor in parking time... but most people don't. And here's a wacky thought: ever notice how many people consistently run late? Ah, time management. I've been living in downtown highrises since the 90s, so I know to factor in elevator time required to get out of my building. In my current building, it's not bad, but when I lived on an upper floor of a 25 story building in Dallas, it took 10 minutes to get out of the building. I'm willing to bet it takes a while to get out of a building like Ione Tower (a.k.a. The Vue).

[2oh1]

All of this subway talk is hilarious. It's. Not. Gonna. Happen. In. The. Next. 50. Years. Come on now. Consider the cost, and then consider all of the other ways that same overwhelmingly massive amount of money could be used. Where would the money even come from and what other opportunities would have to be squandered in exchange? We can't even afford Fareless Square anymore... but we can somehow come up with the billions that a subway would cost? This conversation might as well be about teleporting commuters because that's as likely as a subway system is. Of course I'd love to see a subway built, but Portland has so many other transit needs, and money isn't infinite.

[hat]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

In Portland's case it is none of the above. You might get lucky and live to when they are calling for an alternative like subway. The MAX is designed the way it is designed because they felt like if it was at street level then it would be visually noticeable and easy to access. Plus most rail systems are primarily designed to service a downtown.

With Portland, it doesn't make sense to sink money into a tunnel to shave off a few minutes through downtown so it would be a few minutes faster for someone that might be commuting through downtown.

If there is one thing that I learned while living in New York is that sometimes it just takes forever to commute on the subway. If you are headed to the the Bronx or Queens, then you might as well sit down cause it is gonna be a while because you gotta go through Manhattan.

I think that misses the point entirely. I lived in New York. The 4, 5, 2, 3, and my favorite Q all run express through Manhattan skipping several stops at a time. If there were no express lines through midtown, I would rarely have commuted by train. I would not consider commuting to Beaverton and living in North Portland exactly because of this same reason.

[dubu]

this is a bike city so you can get off the train and bike when you get close downtown

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

All of this subway talk is hilarious. It's. Not. Gonna. Happen. In. The. Next. 50. Years. Come on now. Consider the cost, and then consider all of the other ways that same overwhelmingly massive amount of money could be used. Where would the money even come from and what other opportunities would have to be squandered in exchange? We can't even afford Fareless Square anymore... but we can somehow come up with the billions that a subway would cost? This conversation might as well be about teleporting commuters because that's as likely as a subway system is. Of course I'd love to see a subway built, but Portland has so many other transit needs, and money isn't infinite.

OK, let's consider the cost of ANY transportation project. No, of course there's not some pot of gold sitting around just waiting to be spent. There's no money for ANYTHING until it becomes a priority. Ten years ago, did you think there'd be 1.5 billion dollars laying around to build a 7 mile line to Milwaukie? Of course not... you'd be saying "Not. Gonna. Happen." then, and you'd be wrong. It did happen. And 20 years ago (1994), all we had was one line to Gresham and the Hillsboro line didn't open until 4 years later. Now we have 6 lines (counting the Blue as two separate projects) and 2 streetcar lines, built a brand new bridge for mass transit only and replaced another bridge (Sellwood). That's a hell of a lot of transportation investment in the last 20 years, so to say a tunnel is 50 years out is not just extremely pessimistic, it's completely unreasonable.

The fact is, capacity cannot be increased on the surface streets downtown. Period. We're not "at" capacity just yet, but we're on the verge. And when that starts to constrict movement, a subway will become THE priority. And the funds will become available.

[hat]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

OK, let's consider the cost of ANY transportation project. No, of course there's not some pot of gold sitting around just waiting to be spent. There's no money for ANYTHING until it becomes a priority. Ten years ago, did you think there'd be 1.5 billion dollars laying around to build a 7 mile line to Milwaukie? Of course not... you'd be saying "Not. Gonna. Happen." then, and you'd be wrong. It did happen. And 20 years ago (1994), all we had was one line to Gresham and the Hillsboro line didn't open until 4 years later. Now we have 6 lines (counting the Blue as two separate projects) and 2 streetcar lines, built a brand new bridge for mass transit only and replaced another bridge (Sellwood). That's a hell of a lot of transportation investment in the last 20 years, so to say a tunnel is 50 years out is not just extremely pessimistic, it's completely unreasonable.

The fact is, capacity cannot be increased on the surface streets downtown. Period. We're not "at" capacity just yet, but we're on the verge. And when that starts to constrict movement, a subway will become THE priority. And the funds will become available.

Well said.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by hat

I think that misses the point entirely. I lived in New York. The 4, 5, 2, 3, and my favorite Q all run express through Manhattan skipping several stops at a time. If there were no express lines through midtown, I would rarely have commuted by train. I would not consider commuting to Beaverton and living in North Portland exactly because of this same reason.

Yes, there are lines that do run on express, but it would still take forever to commute from Brooklyn to the Bronx. Also, NYC has separate lines for express trains and lines like the 2,3,4,5 all run through lower Manhattan and have to stop local through that area because it is considered to be "downtown" and all takes time to get through that area. Trains like the Q actually bypass downtown, which isn't something that would be doable in Portland because we aren't that big of a city.

At this point in time, if you live on the eastside and work on the westside, you are gonna have a long commute regardless if you do it by car or transit.

[dubu]

the airport line could go to powell (if the powell line gets built and if it goes down the green line tracks) and the yellow line could stay on the east side or the river or be a streetcar.

it depends on what happens if there will be the need for a subway

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

OK, let's consider the cost of ANY transportation project. No, of course there's not some pot of gold sitting around just waiting to be spent. There's no money for ANYTHING until it becomes a priority. Ten years ago, did you think there'd be 1.5 billion dollars laying around to build a 7 mile line to Milwaukie? Of course not... you'd be saying "Not. Gonna. Happen." then, and you'd be wrong. It did happen. And 20 years ago (1994), all we had was one line to Gresham and the Hillsboro line didn't open until 4 years later. Now we have 6 lines (counting the Blue as two separate projects) and 2 streetcar lines, built a brand new bridge for mass transit only and replaced another bridge (Sellwood). That's a hell of a lot of transportation investment in the last 20 years, so to say a tunnel is 50 years out is not just extremely pessimistic, it's completely unreasonable.

The fact is, capacity cannot be increased on the surface streets downtown. Period. We're not "at" capacity just yet, but we're on the verge. And when that starts to constrict movement, a subway will become THE priority. And the funds will become available.

Actually I figured a Milwaukie line would eventually happen. I also think a SW line will also eventually happen. A subway in downtown Portland? Nope, I don't think that is going to happen in the next 50 years.

Currently this idea for a subway in downtown Portland is nothing more than fantasy and Trimet isn't even thinking about a subway line through downtown.

"analysis also concluded that the operational need to meet projected demand can be met with the existing surface alignments on Southwest Morrison and Yamhill streets and on the Portland Mall."

"diminished accessibility due to a single station is not outweighed by optimizing transit travel speed through the downtown."

"The total estimated capital cost to construct the downtown tunnel as described is $2.2 billion in 2009 dollars."



This paragraph best sums up what could happen in Portland to help reduce time through downtown....and you guessed it, it would be another surface street line.

"Other surface running options for enhancing MAX travel speed through downtown will be considered by the City of Portland in the Central City Plan; these may prove to be the most cost-effective improvements and to best match regional land use and growth management goals. Simply eliminating one or two tightly spaced stations, providing bypass tracks for express trains on Southwest Morrison and Yamhill streets, or adding a separate express alignment on another couplet in downtown could all improve travel speed through the central city at a minimal cost when compared with tunneling."
http://portlandtransport.com/archive...ing_trans.html

This article goes on to bring up a good question, a subway could reduce travel time through downtown by 12 minutes. That sounds great, but for someone commuting by car from the eastside to the westside taking about an hour to make the commute, are they going to switch from car to transit if the MAX shaved off 12 minutes to the Blue line commute that takes 1:40 minutes to go from end to end.

12 minutes isn't really enough to justify spending over 2 billion dollars for a subway.


I am like you, I love the idea of a subway in Portland and I love seeing this city grow, but I am also realistic and a 2 billion dollar subway through downtown just isn't a realistic thing when there are much more affordable options which I would rather see more rail lines running to various locations on the westside than to have a tunnel through downtown just to save a 12 minutes.

[65MAX]

Well, 2 billion dollars is probably what the SW corridor is going to cost, so if you believe that will get built, then you know that the money will come together when the time comes to fund it. Same goes for the tunnel. So the "lack of money" argument is moot. Yes, a subway will shave 10-15 minutes off of millions of commute times after it's built, but time savings is not the prime impetus for building it. Capacity is the main issue. Another surface alignment is going to have negligible effect on system capacity because you're still restricted to shorter trains, about 100 red lights, cross traffic, poor reliability and at some point, you're still crossing the paths of all the existing R, B, G, Y and O trains multiple times no matter where you put the alignment. And that's assuming you could even find another feasible surface alignment.

That so-called "analysis" that you're quoting showed ONE STOP near Pioneer Square. ONE STOP?! Between Lloyd Center and Goose Hollow? Are you f'ing kidding me?! So their argument was that the subway would be inaccessible to almost everyone unless you happened to be in the vicinity of Pioneer Square, and therefore not a good investment. Completely ridiculous!! Nobody has ever suggested a subway with only one station to serve all of Downtown.

It was a red herring to show that they had at least considered a subway when in fact, they want to avoid the subject altogether until all of the "spokes" of the system are built. They don't want to scare everybody away from supporting light rail with sticker shock before the whole metro area is served. But once the SW corridor (and hopefully Powell) is done and a couple of extensions added to the other existing lines, Metro's attention is gonna shift to the hub of the system, increasing reliability and adding capacity. Streetcars will take over the surface alignments and be the Downtown circulators, but the MAX can become the regional system it was meant to be.

So you may think a subway is a silly fantasy that's 50 years out, but a mere 20 years ago, the only rail transit here was from Gresham to the Galleria. Do you honestly believe that once the SW spoke and a couple of new MAX extensions and streetcar alignments are built (certainly well before 2035), Metro is just gonna throw up their hands and say, "OK, that's all. No more rail improvements."?

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

OK, let's consider the cost of ANY transportation project.

You can rant against what I said as much as you like, but you can't deny the expense of building a subway system through downtown and under the river. Care to take a wild guess at what a project like this would even cost?

The money isn't there. Even worse than the fact that the money isn't there, you have to consider other transit needs that couldn't be addressed if money needed to build them were allocated to building a subway.

Is anyone at Trimet doing any work on planning for a subway through downtown? Well, the topic has been discussed, but you're not going to like the results.

The analysis concluded that construction of a downtown bypass or tunnel does improve travel speed but at the expense of superior access to employment and households in downtown provided by an at-grade, convenient alignment. This analysis also concluded that the operational need to meet projected demand can be met with the existing surface alignments on Southwest Morrison and Yamhill streets and on the Portland Mall. Downtown employment constitutes a high enough percentage of regional employment that diminished accessibility due to a single station is not outweighed by optimizing transit travel speed through the downtown. Direct service is measured by walk access of a half mile. The total estimated capital cost to construct the downtown tunnel as described is $2.2 billion in 2009 dollars. More stations could be built, but the travel time savings would be correspondingly less, diminishing returns for what would be one of the most expensive projects ever built in the region.

[SOURCE]

It's a fun topic. I love the idea. But it's not going to happen within the next half century.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

Well, 2 billion dollars is probably what the SW corridor is going to cost, so if you believe that will get built, then you know that the money will come together when the time comes to fund it. Same goes for the tunnel. So the "lack of money" argument is moot. Yes, a subway will shave 10-15 minutes off of millions of commute times after it's built, but time savings is not the prime impetus for building it. Capacity is the main issue. Another surface alignment is going to have negligible effect on system capacity because you're still restricted to shorter trains, about 100 red lights, cross traffic, poor reliability and at some point, you're still crossing the paths of all the existing R, B, G, Y and O trains multiple times no matter where you put the alignment. And that's assuming you could even find another feasible surface alignment.

That so-called "analysis" that you're quoting showed ONE STOP near Pioneer Square. ONE STOP?! Between Lloyd Center and Goose Hollow? Are you f'ing kidding me?! So their argument was that the subway would be inaccessible to almost everyone unless you happened to be in the vicinity of Pioneer Square, and therefore not a good investment. Completely ridiculous!! Nobody has ever suggested a subway with only one station to serve all of Downtown.

It was a red herring to show that they had at least considered a subway when in fact, they want to avoid the subject altogether until all of the "spokes" of the system are built. They don't want to scare everybody away from supporting light rail with sticker shock before the whole metro area is served. But once the SW corridor (and hopefully Powell) is done and a couple of extensions added to the other existing lines, Metro's attention is gonna shift to the hub of the system, increasing reliability and adding capacity. Streetcars will take over the surface alignments and be the Downtown circulators, but the MAX can become the regional system it was meant to be.

So you may think a subway is a silly fantasy that's 50 years out, but a mere 20 years ago, the only rail transit here was from Gresham to the Galleria. Do you honestly believe that once the SW spoke and a couple of new MAX extensions and streetcar alignments are built (certainly well before 2035), Metro is just gonna throw up their hands and say, "OK, that's all. No more rail improvements."?

Unless you have insider information, this is nothing more than fantasy. I would much rather see a SW line than I would a subway line in downtown that might shave a couple minutes and allow for longer trains that would then require every station that it led to to be lengthened to handle longer trains.

TriMet has no plans for a subway and will look at surface options when the time comes, if you are expecting them to go with a subway line in the next 20 years, you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

You can rant against what I said as much as you like, but you can't deny the expense of building a subway system through downtown and under the river. Care to take a wild guess at what a project like this would even cost?

The money isn't there. Even worse than the fact that the money isn't there, you have to consider other transit needs that couldn't be addressed if money needed to build them were allocated to building a subway.

I don't have to guess, we already know it's upwards of $2 billion. And who ever said it was gonna be cheap? No major infrastructure project is cheap and nobody is "denying" the cost. But you seem to think that if there's no $2 billion reserve sitting around somewhere, that this project could never be built. That's just plain wrong. There was no $1.5 billion sitting around when Metro made light rail to Milwaukie the next regional priority. The funding came after the decision to proceed. Likewise with the replacement of the Sellwood Bridge. Or the $1 billion+ Big Pipe projects (two of them). Or with the upcoming SW Corridor project. The funds are cobbled together AFTER they get the green light to proceed.

Originally Posted by 2oh1

Is anyone at Trimet doing any work on planning for a subway through downtown? Well, the topic has been discussed, but you're not going to like the results.

Obviously they're not planning anything yet, or they wouldn't be using the laughable example of a 3 mile long tunnel from Lloyd Center to Goose Hollow that bypasses everything except a single station at Pioneer Square. The results of that "analysis" are as bogus as the proposal they chose to analyze. Like I said, it's an easy way for them to avoid the subject and kick the can down the road. But as soon as Metro does make the subway the next regional priority, Trimet is gonna break out the real maps and provide real proposals. This isn't just wishful thinking, it's simply a matter of capacity.

You seem to think a subway here is impossible until at least 2065. I know it'll be here much sooner than you think, most likely around 2035. We'll just have to disagree on that timeline, but 20 years from now, I'll be happy to tell you "I told you so".