HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Portland > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #261  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2010, 10:20 PM
Eco_jt's Avatar
Eco_jt Eco_jt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Portland
Posts: 114
The Bart system in the SF Bay Area is installing wi-fi but they are heavy rail/elevated rail/subway

here's the link:
http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/20...s20090202.aspx
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #262  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2010, 11:30 PM
JordanL JordanL is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eco_jt View Post
The Bart system in the SF Bay Area is installing wi-fi but they are heavy rail/elevated rail/subway

here's the link:
http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/20...s20090202.aspx
There's no real reason that a lightrail system couldn't have wifi, it would just have more interference which would necessitate more wifi routers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #263  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2010, 1:32 AM
bvpcvm bvpcvm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Portland
Posts: 2,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJD View Post
For those who had a chance to go to one of the open houses it is amazing how much they already have planned out. The details online are minimal at best, but they have schematics for every little piece of sidewalk, post and signal. I asked them how far they were with engineering "70-90%" and, to my great surprise, they replied "30%." Apparently, Trimet does not fool around anymore with the details... everyone at the open house, but a few, were very happy to see how much thought had gone in to every aspect. Now I know why light rail costs Trimet more to produce than anywhere else in the country; higher cost, but better end product.
I would imagine that to get up to 90% they'd have to have blueprints for pretty much everything with just about every bolt planned out.

I'm glad to see all this info online; up 'til now there's been a real dearth of info when they're planning new lines. With the green line they put up maybe 6 or 7 renderings of stations and that video and that was about it; about the yellow and red lines there was even less.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #264  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2010, 4:07 AM
rsbear's Avatar
rsbear rsbear is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Texas - Hill Country
Posts: 822
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJD View Post
Now I know why light rail costs Trimet more to produce than anywhere else in the country
Where did you get that "statistic"?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #265  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2010, 7:47 AM
philopdx philopdx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Deep South
Posts: 1,275
I'd love cell service on trains, then I could talk/surf/etc in the tunnel. Europe is CRAZY like that - when I was in Poland in 2007 and the had cell service in a SALT MINE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wieliczka_Salt_Mine
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #266  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2010, 8:18 PM
RED_PDXer RED_PDXer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 794
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJD View Post
Oh, and ODOT was there to show off how the project does not interfere with their planned widening of McLoughlin to 6 through lanes plus auxiliary lanes! I had to bite my tongue to not argue with the guy that Portland doesn't need a new freeway to replace McLoughlin, but that's a battle for another day...
Is it really a "planned" widening, or are they reserving the ability to widen at some future year? I would associate a "planned" project as one with a timeline for implementation and identified in the Regional Transportation Plan as a project slated for funding. I don't think widening 99E is slated for regional funding or has a timeframe.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #267  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2010, 2:27 AM
NJD's Avatar
NJD NJD is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland
Posts: 632
Quote:
Where did you get that "statistic"?
I don't remember now, but there was some criticism a while back about how Portland's light rail construction costs have ballooned well past any sort of inflation or material cost increases... think about the $214 million for 15 miles in 1986 versus $350 million for 6 miles in 2004 or $575 for 8 miles in 2009: which translates into a 400-475% cost increase in around 20 years (the consumer price index increased only 47.5% from 1986-2004 and 68% from 1986-2009, equates to light rail construction jumping 6-8 times the inflation rate). I wish I could find the original report which stated that overall transit construction costs rose 3-4 times higher than other infrastructure construction costs during the same time span.

Quote:
Is it really a "planned" widening, or are they reserving the ability to widen at some future year?
Yes and yes... it looks like ODOT wanted to widen McLoughlin years ago but the project got shelved for whatever reason (I didn't ask), so currently it is a reserved alignment for a future time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #268  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2010, 6:04 AM
bvpcvm bvpcvm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Portland
Posts: 2,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJD View Post
I don't remember now, but there was some criticism a while back about how Portland's light rail construction costs have ballooned well past any sort of inflation or material cost increases... think about the $214 million for 15 miles in 1986 versus $350 million for 6 miles in 2004 or $575 for 8 miles in 2009: which translates into a 400-475% cost increase in around 20 years (the consumer price index increased only 47.5% from 1986-2004 and 68% from 1986-2009, equates to light rail construction jumping 6-8 times the inflation rate). I wish I could find the original report which stated that overall transit construction costs rose 3-4 times higher than other infrastructure construction costs during the same time span.
cpi is one thing, but haven't construction costs in general ballooned in the last decade? it would be interesting to compare the cost of office buildings built at the same time. also, i imagine environmental regulations have only gotten tighter and made most any infrastructure project more expensive - i doubt we had to give a thought to salmon, for example, when we built the fremont bridge. my point is that it's probably not lrt construction costs per se which have gone up, instead, the costs of all large infrastructure costs have gone up. more than cpi.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #269  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2010, 7:10 AM
NJD's Avatar
NJD NJD is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland
Posts: 632
^ yes, but...

Quote:
I wish I could find the original report which stated that overall transit construction costs rose 3-4 times higher than other infrastructure construction costs during the same time span
... the article, which I am still trying to find, had statistics on highway, freeway, interchange, freight rail, electric & water infrastructure, airports, metros, commuter rail, and light rail construction costs. Highway construction costs went up more than CPI, but airport construction inflation was double of highway, and all transit modes were 3-4 times the inflation of highway costruction. The article gave no reasons, but I do expect, like you said, mitigation to be the biggest culprit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #270  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2010, 4:38 PM
JordanL JordanL is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJD View Post
I don't remember now, but there was some criticism a while back about how Portland's light rail construction costs have ballooned well past any sort of inflation or material cost increases... think about the $214 million for 15 miles in 1986 versus $350 million for 6 miles in 2004 or $575 for 8 miles in 2009: which translates into a 400-475% cost increase in around 20 years (the consumer price index increased only 47.5% from 1986-2004 and 68% from 1986-2009, equates to light rail construction jumping 6-8 times the inflation rate). I wish I could find the original report which stated that overall transit construction costs rose 3-4 times higher than other infrastructure construction costs during the same time span.
CPI doesn't measure inflation... inflation is a measure of dollar depreciation, not asset valuation. Further the CPI doesn't include food or transportation.

The thing about building a MAX line is that you are dealing with foreign suppliers, and when dealing with currency exchange you encounter ACTUAL inflation, which has been almost 100% just from 2000-2008.

The CPI only even comes CLOSE to estimating inflation if your entire purchase process occurs in US dollars, which it doesn't when you buy lots of steel, or train cars from foreign manufacturers, etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #271  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2010, 8:04 PM
NJD's Avatar
NJD NJD is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland
Posts: 632
^ Um... I have a degree in Business Economics. Yes, in fact, CPI is how you normally measure inflation.

If you don't believe me, read a definition: from Financial Accounting W.D.H. 1973
Quote:
A chief measure of price inflation is the inflation rate, the annualized percentage change in a general price index (normally the Consumer Price Index) over time.
My post was directed at the overall increase in construction costs for transit systems, which has gone up at 300-400% over highway construction's 'inflation' rate (which includes buying power, material costs,labor, etc...). The reason I brought up CPI is to give those who don't understand inflation a reference to base my post on.

So, say CPI inflation was at 3% in 2000 (over 1999), the same year overall highway construction costs rose 7.2% and transit investment construction costs increased at a rate of just under 25%. Do you understand what I am getting at? Transit is getting more expensive faster than highway construction is, even though highway construction cost is 'inflating' at more than twice the rate the average consumer goods are 'inflating.'

Quote:
The thing about building a MAX line is that you are dealing with foreign suppliers, and when dealing with currency exchange you encounter ACTUAL inflation, which has been almost 100% just from 2000-2008.
^If only it was that simple: you forgot land value increased at an inflated rate, construction material domestic and foreign, transportation costs, labor costs, engineering costs, administration costs, public art and environmental clauses and mitigation, legal fees, financing costs, and the consumer price index on top of it all.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #272  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2010, 10:14 PM
alexjon's Avatar
alexjon alexjon is offline
Bears of antiquity
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Downtown/First Hill, Seattle, WA
Posts: 8,340
And here I thought Seattle had the most expensive LRT system...
__________________
"The United States is in no way founded upon the Christian religion." -- George Washington & John Adams in a diplomatic message to Malta
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #273  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2010, 1:01 AM
NJD's Avatar
NJD NJD is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland
Posts: 632
^ heh

Central Link Seattle 13.9 miles for $2.4 billion ($173 mil a mile)
Milwaukie Max Portland 7.3 miles for $1.4 billion ($191 mil a mile)

...but, honestly this is an apples and oranges comparison no matter what light rail system you compare.

Last edited by NJD; Mar 9, 2010 at 1:15 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #274  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2010, 10:21 AM
JordanL JordanL is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJD View Post
^ Um... I have a degree in Business Economics. Yes, in fact, CPI is how you normally measure inflation.

If you don't believe me, read a definition: from Financial Accounting W.D.H. 1973


My post was directed at the overall increase in construction costs for transit systems, which has gone up at 300-400% over highway construction's 'inflation' rate (which includes buying power, material costs,labor, etc...). The reason I brought up CPI is to give those who don't understand inflation a reference to base my post on.

So, say CPI inflation was at 3% in 2000 (over 1999), the same year overall highway construction costs rose 7.2% and transit investment construction costs increased at a rate of just under 25%. Do you understand what I am getting at? Transit is getting more expensive faster than highway construction is, even though highway construction cost is 'inflating' at more than twice the rate the average consumer goods are 'inflating.'



^If only it was that simple: you forgot land value increased at an inflated rate, construction material domestic and foreign, transportation costs, labor costs, engineering costs, administration costs, public art and environmental clauses and mitigation, legal fees, financing costs, and the consumer price index on top of it all.
I'm quite familiar with economics. My point was not that you were wrong about LRT inflating faster than the rest of available assets, but rather that: 1. the CPI is poor measure of actual inflation and 2. inflation is less about things getting mroe expensive and more about dollars being worth less.

Course I'm more apt to agree with Mises economics than anything, so I believe much more in the power of monetary inflation as opposed to asset inflation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #275  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2010, 5:57 AM
RED_PDXer RED_PDXer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 794
I attended the high-speed rail summit in Eugene this week.. A presenter on CA's high speed rail project said they would need 4 years of the world's supply of high-grade steel to construct the tracks alone for their one project. Imagine all the other materials they'll be using in such high quantities over the next 15 years.. then multiply all of that by 10 when you consider the rapid construction of similar projects throughout Europe and other parts of the world. I suspect construction costs will continue to increase dramatically for LRT projects..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #276  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2010, 3:58 PM
NJD's Avatar
NJD NJD is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland
Posts: 632
^^^ I was wrong, transit construction in the US has risen in costs, but PDX is low on the list for expense per mile when considering non-LRT modes including... BRT?

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2...s-2/#more-6283
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #277  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2010, 4:28 PM
alexjon's Avatar
alexjon alexjon is offline
Bears of antiquity
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Downtown/First Hill, Seattle, WA
Posts: 8,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJD View Post
^ heh

Central Link Seattle 13.9 miles for $2.4 billion ($173 mil a mile)
Milwaukie Max Portland 7.3 miles for $1.4 billion ($191 mil a mile)

...but, honestly this is an apples and oranges comparison no matter what light rail system you compare.
Back the costs out by a few years.
__________________
"The United States is in no way founded upon the Christian religion." -- George Washington & John Adams in a diplomatic message to Malta
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #278  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2010, 1:19 AM
NJD's Avatar
NJD NJD is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland
Posts: 632
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #279  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2010, 10:29 PM
NJD's Avatar
NJD NJD is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland
Posts: 632
Milwaukie business finds tricky way out of MAX line’s path

BY: Justin Carinci, DJC



To build the Portland-to-Milwaukie light-rail line, transit agency TriMet must move a nearly immovable object. The line will run through the center of what is now Beaver Heat Treating in north Milwaukie’s industrial area.

Transit-line expansions often force property owners to move. But relocation of this business, which treats metal equipment for clients including Ford and the U.S. military, is more problematic than most, said John Baker, real property acquisition manager for TriMet.

“We deal with stuff like this all the time,” Baker said. “But this is one of the most complicated ones I’ve ever seen.”

Beaver Heat Treating runs 26 furnaces in a 32,000-square-foot building east of Southeast McLoughlin Boulevard. Moving, or even cooling, those furnaces could damage them irreparably, said Tony Moran, the company’s vice president.

“The equipment we use in heat treating can’t be shut off,” Moran said. “We have to let it idle at temperature during the weekend.

“(TriMet is) trying to figure out, ‘How do you move a facility that’s never off?’ ” he said.

The answer, Moran said, is to set up a similar operation elsewhere, get it running, and only then shut down the existing plant. That could take $15 million to $23 million, Moran said.

No one wanted the new line to run through Beaver Heat Treating. The locally preferred alternative for the route, approved in 2003 and reaffirmed in 2008, would have shaved 6 feet off the company’s maintenance building, but otherwise left its operations intact.

The Union Pacific Railroad Co., whose line parallels the Portland-to-Milwaukie project through north Milwaukie, changed those plans, said Leah Robbins, the project’s director for the east segment.

Union Pacific had required that light-rail trains run no closer than 25 feet from its trains. Last year, in light of a recent accident in Colorado involving light-rail and heavy-rail trains, the railroad updated its requirements to increase the distance to 50 feet.

TriMet objected, saying that would cause the project to cut a wide gouge clear into downtown Milwaukie. “We strenuously showed them what the impact of that alignment would be,” Robbins said.

“It’s absolutely unacceptable to the project or the city of Milwaukie.”

Union Pacific officials agreed, except for a small area of north Milwaukie that gets higher-speed freight traffic and Amtrak trains. The alignment through the Beaver site is final, Robbins said.

“It’s very solid,” she said. “It’s not shifting anymore.”

Under federal law, TriMet must pay for Beaver Heat Treating to move to a new location. But there’s nothing simple about the move, Baker said.

The company’s tile-lined furnaces could break if they cool down. “You can’t tell a property owner, ‘Sorry you had to move and they all broke,’” Baker said. “That’s not fair.”

TriMet officials are appraising the Beaver property and haven’t started negotiating with the company, Baker said. One question will be whether the move will require some downtime.

Beaver Heat Treating’s contracts require it to provide products continuously or face steep fines. Going off-line, even for a month, could put the company out of business, Moran said.

Without the winches Beaver Heat Treating supplies for its F-150 and F-250 pickups, Ford would have to shut down its assembly line, Moran said. Beaver could get fined $25,000 for every minute that happens.

“If your assembly line is down, that’s 1,200 people not working today and standing there because you’re not going to supply their product,” he said.

A second-generation family business, Beaver Heat Treating has operated on the same site since 1955, Moran said. The zoning and permitting for the type of business will probably make finding a new site difficult, he said, but he doesn’t mind relocating.

“Our business can produce what it does anywhere, as long as it’s in the general location. But can they move us without interrupting customer service?” Moran said. That’s why he would want a new site running before the old one closes.

“We didn’t ask to be relocated,” he said. “We’re not asking to be rebuilt any better than we already are, but we don’t want to take any less than what we already have.

“The property and building are immaterial, but if our equipment is jeopardized because of the move, we could easily go out of business,” Moran said. “You’d have 40-some people unemployed due to a mass transit issue.”
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #280  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2010, 4:19 PM
Eco_jt's Avatar
Eco_jt Eco_jt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Portland
Posts: 114
Post TriMet adjusts to MAX line cut Federal funding falls short, leaving a $345 million ga

http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/...35443421544700

Portland’s portion of the proposed 7.3-mile Milwaukie MAX line extension will probably be spared the brunt of any cuts caused by the federal government’s unexpectedly low contribution to the project.

According to TriMet officials, the most significant change could be a reduction of the 800-space park-and-ride lot near the east end of the Tacoma Street bridge. Other reductions – if they occur – could happen at the Milwaukie end of the line.

Just three weeks after Neil McFarlane became the new TriMet general manager, the Federal Transit Administration threw him a curve ball – it has agreed to finance only 50 percent of the new downtown-to-Milwaukie MAX light-rail line, not the 60 percent the agency had requested.

“The good news in the announcement is that the FTA said there is strong justification for the project and they will work with us on it,” McFarlane said. “Beginning today, we will start talking to our funding partners about our options. They include raising more local funds and resizing the project, but it is too early to say which way we will go.”

According to TriMet, the FTA has promised to fund 50 percent of the project, up to around $735.8 million. But state, regional and local governments have only committed to the original 40 percent in matching funds – about $600 million, TriMet says.

That means as of today, TriMet is only assured of around $1.2 billion for the project. But it is budgeted at around $1.545 billion – a difference of about $345 million.

That means TriMet and its funding partners must find up to another $135.8 million or so to qualify for the full federal share – and even with that, the project still would have to be trimmed by nearly $74 milion. The partners include the state, Metro, Clackamas County, Portland, Portland State University and Oregon Health & Science University.

Portland does not have additional funds that it can immediately pledge for the project, according to Roy Kaufmann, a spokesman for Mayor Sam Adams. Instead, Kaufmann says the city will work with the Oregon congressional delegation to secure more federal funds. The city also will work with TriMet staff to see how the project can be recalibrated.

Kaufmann says that one of the FTA’s reasons for limiting its share to 50 percent – that reason being competition for the money – proves that the project will benefit the region. TriMet was one of the first transit agencies to build new rail lines. Now many other regions are planning similar projects and vying for scarce federal funds.

“Other regions now recognize the environmental and economic development benefits of transit projects,” Kaufmann says.
Logical places to cut

Regardless of what happens, however, downtown and inner eastside Portland sections of the line will probably not be affected much. The line has to connect at the southern terminus of the downtown MAX line near Portland State University that opened last year.

The route to South Waterfront has only one station on Southwest Lincoln Street between Second and Third avenues. There is only one stop in South Waterfront next to the new campus planned by OHSU. The new Willamette River bridge from the OHSU station to the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry has to be built to connect South Waterfront to the inner eastside. And MacFarlane says the $135 million budgeted for the bridge is already the minimum for such a structure.

There are only seven other stations planned for the rest of the line – five in Southeast Portland, one in Milwaukie and one in Oak Grove. MacFarlane says the Portland stations are the minimum needed to serve that part of town. The Milwaukie station is a must, since reaching that Clackamas County station is the long-standing goal of the line.

That leaves only a few logical places to cut along the line. One is the extension from the Milwaukie station to Oak Grove, which could be delayed. Or the 600-space park and ride facility at the Oak Grove station could be reduced. The 800-space park and ride facility at the Tacoma Street station, on the eastern edge of Sellwood, also could be reduced.

Beyond that, McFarlane says some items that are not directly related to the route could be cut. For example, TriMet could buy just the bare minimum number of new rail cars needed for the line on opening day. Additional cars could be purchased as demand grows. New maintenance facilities also could be trimmed back, along with amenities at the stations.

McFarlane says it is too soon to know whether local governments will commit more funds to the project or whether it must be cut the full $345 million. MacFarlane suspects closing the gap will require both additional local funds and budget cuts, and he promises there will be time for public comment before the final decision.

Basics of the proposed route

The proposed Portland-to-Milwaukie light rail project would be TriMet’s sixth MAX line in the region. The 7.3-mile extension will run from Portland State University through South Waterfront and Southeast Portland to Milwaukie and Oak Grove in North Clackamas County.

It includes the first new Willamette River bridge in 35 years, carrying MAX trains, TriMet buses, Portland Streetcars, bicyclists and pedestrians between South Waterfront and the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry. Plans call for the construction of seven new stops at the following locations:

• Southwest Lincoln Street Station between Second and Third avenues at the southern end of downtown Portland.

• South Waterfront Station adjacent to the site of the future OHSU South Waterfront Campus

• OMSI Station adjacent to OMSI, Portland Opera's Hampton Opera Center, the Portland Community College Workforce Training Center and bike route connections to the Springwater Corridor and the Vera Katz Eastbank Esplanade.

• Southeast Clinton Street Station between Southeast Division Street and Powell Boulevard at Clinton Street and 12th Avenue, in the Hosford-Abernethy neighborhood.

• Southeast Rhine Street/17th Avenue Station south of Powell Boulevard in the Brooklyn neighborhood, with pedestrian bridge connection to Fred Meyer corporate headquarters.

• Southeast Holgate Boulevard/17th Avenue Station at the juncture of Holgate Boulevard and 17th Avenue in the Brooklyn neighborhood.

• Southeast Bybee Boulevard Station at the intersection of Bybee and McLoughlin boulevards in the Sellwood-Moreland and Eastmoreland neighborhoods, within walking distance of Reed College.

• Southeast Tacoma Boulevard Station and park and ride near the intersection of Tacoma and McLoughlin boulevards in the Ardenwald-Johnson Creek neighborhood, connecting to the Springwater Corridor. An 800-space park and ride facility is planned at this location.

• Southeast Lake Road/21st Avenue Station in downtown Milwaukie.

• Park Avenue Station and park and ride at Southeast Park Avenue and McLoughlin Boulevard in north Clackamas County, connecting to the Trolley Trail. A 600-space park and ride facility is planned at this location.

Current local matches

Here are the local funding matches committed to the Portland-to-Milwaukie MAX line prior to the Federal Transit Agency announcement Monday that it will only provide 50 percent of the money for the project, not 60 percent that was originally sought.

The FTA counts bond finance costs as local contributions, but the total will vary by the final size of the project. Given the probable reduction, TriMet estimates the local match at approximately $600 million.
Source Amount

State Lottery Bonds $250 million
Metro/MTIP funds $72.5 million

In-Kind Contributions $46.5 million
City of Milwaukie $5 million

City of Portland $30 million
Clackamas County $25 million

TriMet $39.2 million
Metro Grant $300,000

Finance costs Up to $149.6 million
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Portland > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:30 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.