Portland Transit | TriMet/Mass Transit News

[Grantenfuego]

Originally Posted by davehogan

What about Amtrak? That's just a few blocks off Burnside.

Yeah, the Amtrak and Greyhound stations are both not far at all, and easy to get to. If this Boltbus stop or station, or whatever it will be, is really going to be two blocks from Pioneer Square it will be even easier. You could do some quick tax free shopping 10 minutes before you have to get on the bus to seattle.

[2oh1]

Where exactly IS the stop for Boltbus? 647 SW Salmon? That seems odd.

[MarkDaMan]

A couple weeks old, but in light of the anti-rail news, the opposition appears to be speaking loudly, with not a lot of followers.

Anti-light rail petitioners fall short on signatures
Review costs city $31,000; collection effort continues
By Andrea Damewood
Columbian Staff Reporter

Originally published April 18, 2012 at 11:10 a.m., updated April 18, 2012 at 4:38 p.m.

http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/a...t-of-signatur/

The Clark County Auditor’s office has declared more than two-thirds of signatures turned in by light rail opponents seeking a vote on the issue to be invalid.

A group of Vancouver residents submitted 9,039 signatures on a petition calling for a vote to create an ordinance that would prohibit any city resources from being used to extend TriMet’s MAX line from Portland to Vancouver.

After examining the signatures line by line, the auditor’s office found that 6,048 were invalid, leaving just 3,165 valid signatures, Vancouver City Attorney Ted Gathe said. The petitioners must submit 5,472 valid signatures to make the ballot.

Many of the signatures, Gathe said, were duplicates, not from registered voters, or were from voters who don’t live within the Vancouver city limits. Other signatures were given more than six months before they were submitted to the city, which also invalidates them, he said.

The review of the signatures will cost Vancouver about $31,000, Gathe said.

She said she expected there may have been issues with many of the signatures.

“People were pretty confused about where they lived — they knew they lived in Vancouver, but that doesn’t mean that you are part of the city of Vancouver,” Peterson said.

um okay, if you say so...

[CouvScott]

They came to my door last week and I just told them I wasn't interested.

[MarkDaMan]

State of Oregon and city of Portland reveal latest vision for easing congestion, improving safety at Rose Quarter, June 7
Published: Wednesday, June 06, 2012, 5:56 PM Updated: Wednesday, June 06, 2012, 10:57 PM
Cornelius Swart, The Oregonian

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i...ity_of_po.html

The State of Oregon and city of Portland will reveal its latest draft of a $300-$400 million plan for improving safety and reducing congestion around the Rose Quarter on Thursday June 7...

...The N/NE Quadrant and I-5 Broadway/Weidler Plans will be available at the Rose Quarter'€™s Rose Room at 5:30 p.m., and planners will be available to answer questions. The plans include a proposal to add two new lanes to Interstate 5, to cap the freeway and to remove at least one surface road.

According to the state, the section of I-5 between the I-405 Bridge and the I-84 interchanges, in which I-5 narrows down to as few as two lanes in each direction, is the most accident-prone stretch of road in the state...

...The current draft plan envisions improving traffic flow and safety by removing the North Flint Avenue bridge over I-5 and moving one freeway ramp at North Winning Way to Northeast Weidler Street. Bike riders and pedestrians would be channeled into a series of raised paths and a new bike- and pedestrian-only bridge across the freeway at Northeast Clackamas Street.

The main improvements, however, would be on I-5. Currently, motorists trying to reach I-84 from the Rose Quarter must briefly merge into I-5 southbound traffic. The merging causes problems for travelers on both freeways.

Under the new plan, news lanes would be added to I-5 and dedicated specifically to traffic headed for I-84, eliminating the need to merge...

...A cap across the freeway, similar to the one found in downtown Seattle, could create new space for a park or other facilities...

[tworivers]

^^^
Sorry to be Mr Negative all the time but this plan is another example of the hallucinations of highway engineers in a dying age. They've done a much better job here of throwing bones to the right people but this is still fundamentally about expanding capacity, not safety. Furthermore, I guarantee you that the freeway caps will be the first thing to go when the inevitable cost-cutting begins.

[NJD]

^ The freeway caps are necessary for construction staging: rerouting the on/off ramp traffic and the Streetcar during construction. Leaving them permanently as parks or development land (after construction) is purely a bonus.

Also, this whole project is designed to fix one of the last problems created by cancelling the Mt. Hood Freeway decades ago... This section of freeway was never designed to be a major expressway interchange: the (thankfully) never-built Mt. Hood and Rose City freeways were designed and planned (see ghost ramps) to eat this traffic not the pre-Interstate designation US 30 Banfield merge at I-5. I think this is a great project honestly, and I welcome any help with those particularly dangerous merges on I-5 from I-84 to the Fremont Bridge. This is a far cry from the CRC as it actually makes the whole area better for walking, biking, auto, and transit!

[MarkDaMan]

TriMet to vote on ending free rail zone downtown
by Tim Gordon kgw.com

http://www.kgw.com/news/Free-rail-zo...158717695.html

...TriMet is set to vote Wednesday on ending the free rail zone in downtown. And the city’s bureau of transportation says it will follow suit, if it happen.
There are two reasons for the planned end of free rides, according to Portland Bureau Of Transportation spokesperson Dan Anderson; One is to stay consistent with TriMet’s plans. The other is to be fair to people east of the Willamette River when new east side streetcar service begins September 22nd.

"We understand that’s a difficult decision for us to make but also for people who ride street cars for free but we think it’s an equity and fairness issue,” said Anderson. “If people on the east side have to pay for the streetcar, then people on the west side should as well...”

[Derek]

TriMet adopts new fiscal year budget, eliminates Free Rail Zone
By FOX 12 Staff

http://www.kptv.com/story/18783565/t...free-rail-zone

TriMet board members voted Tuesday to adopt a fiscal year 2013 budget that will enact a flat fare system and eliminate the Free Rail Zone.

[zilfondel]

Stopped using transit here. You guys?

[MarkDaMan]

I bought a car in March, for many more reasons than pending TriMet cuts, but when they announced some early drastic cuts they were pondering the spring, it was the final straw that pushed me to search for a car. I drive to Gateway Transit now and take the MAX.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by zilfondel

Stopped using transit here. You guys?

Not me. I'm carless and happy, though I wasn't happy when I saw this show up on the news a few days ago. Obviously, I'm against it, but it's inevitable.

I want downtown to be a tourist friendly place. I see tourist dollars as mostly freebies, and I want them flowing to Portland. Perhaps free is a bit of a stretch since we have to invest in things that make Portland a place tourists want to come to, but I want outside dollars flowing in and I see easy tourist-friendly downtown mass transit as a big bonus.

I was sorry to see free busses ended downtown last year (or was that 2010?), but really, I didn't see that service as being THAT important to the city as a whole. But free rail matters. Tourists walk out of their hotels and hop on trains. MAX is easy. Streetcars are easy. I'm very sad to see that sort of free infrastructure taken away from Portland.

I think most Portlanders have a negative view of tourists, but not me. When I see tourists, I see out of town dollars flowing in for our local businesses. I saw the free rail zone as a big plus for making downtown more tourist friendly.

Trimet isn't going to see the gains they predict from ending the free rail zone. I suspect they know that but are at the point where they're grasping for straws to save face. If they can't balance the budget, they probably hope to at least buy time while showing they're doing *something*.

I lost my faith in Trimet's leadership quite a while ago.

[Downtown_Gal]

A while back I remember reading that the streetcar was thinking about charging a flat fee of $1 for all rides... does anyone know if that plan is still in consideration. I would pay a buck to hop on the streetcar, but more than that and I would just walk.

[JordanL]

Originally Posted by tworivers

^^^
Sorry to be Mr Negative all the time but this plan is another example of the hallucinations of highway engineers in a dying age. They've done a much better job here of throwing bones to the right people but this is still fundamentally about expanding capacity, not safety. Furthermore, I guarantee you that the freeway caps will be the first thing to go when the inevitable cost-cutting begins.

That area of I-5 needs to be widened if only for freight traffic.

EDIT:

I'll expand a bit. I-5 is a huge corridor for freight, and that is actually the main reason that the Feds have pushed so hard on the CRC, as the I-5 bridge is the only spot on the entire I-5 freeway with a lift bridge. Several years ago, Portland created is comprehensive transportation plan, which considered the next 50 years of growth, and how to manage it across all modes.

While it emphasized alternative modes for commuting, it noted that the current freeway system would be inadequate within 50 years, even if freight was the only thing traveling on it. That is, if all commuting was done by modes other than cars, our freeway system would still not be adequate for the amount of freight traffic that would be using the system at that time.

It proposed many ways to deal with this, (one of it's big suggestions on this was updating and improving our freight rail infrastructure), but it came to the conclusion that we have almost no choice but to partially expand I-5 (particularly through the Rose Quarter and through North Portland) if goods continue to be transported by vehicles which use roads over the next 50 years.

This particular interchange is a nightmare for everyone involved. Car traffic is very hazardous because of how dangerous the area is for freight. There is a legitimate safety problem with this section of freeway, where freight from I-84 merges and splits with I-5, and it creates both traffic and safety hazards for cars.

Categorically opposing all highway projects is very similar to the Clark/Clackamas County groups which oppose MAX/Streetcar. It doesn't make logical sense, and benefits no one.

[MarkDaMan]

Bridge engineers say they have less control over projects
POSTED: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 at 03:47 PM PT
BY: Reed Jackson
Daily Journal of Commerce

http://djcoregon.com/news/2012/07/11...over-projects/

If it were up to the engineering community, the long-delayed and highly controversial Columbia River Crossing project would be completed by now, according to Christopher Higgins, a Slayden Construction faculty fellow and an engineering professor at Oregon State University.

“One of the key issues for me is that I see the present (project) process being driven by vocal special interests,” he said. “I would not say a faulty structure is going up, but one that is driven by many demands.”

Higgins, known by his students as the “bridge doctor,” believes the CRC’s drawn-out process demonstrates what sort of challenges bridge engineers face today. Projects are increasingly becoming more regulated by public and environmental processes, he said, which often dictate their outcomes more than the engineers themselves.

“I would say that engineers have a more restricted role in the modern era,” he said. “We are caught up in the public process … this almost invariably increases the cost and time to deliver projects. It sometimes makes us choose more complex solutions to simple problems.”

Bridge engineers have less control of projects now than in the past, according to Dennis McGee, principal engineer of McGee Engineering. For instance, CRC alternatives – such as a tunnel concept – were not fully developed, he said. Instead, outside influences determined a large portion of the bridge’s final design, which has led to potentially problematic elements like the bridge’s low height, he said.

McGee has faced similar project challenges himself. McGee Engineering recently was hired to design an Interstate 84 bridge over the Sandy River; however, because of environmental processes, the bridge’s piles could not be driven into the river as planned, McGee said. Although McGee acknowledged that the processes serve an important purpose, he believes they are too restrictive.

“The scientists are driving the bus right now, and I say that as a 66-year-old engineer not being able to get anything done that we used to do,” he said. “(The I-84 project) was an absolutely impossible job to build by the time it got to the engineers.”

Project restrictions may not be the fault of scientists or environmentalists, however. They can be attributed to rigid regulations imposed by government agencies, according to Bob Murray, chief bridge engineer at Parametrix, a firm based in Auburn, Wash., that employs both engineers and scientists.

The regulations sometimes force Parametrix engineers to redesign bridges to be longer, cost more and not noticeably benefit the environment, according to Murray.

“(Our scientists and ecologists) don’t agree with a lot of it either, but their hands are tied because it’s all dictated by the agencies,” he said. “I personally think some of those restrictions, although with good intentions, have just kind of blossomed and made some things very restrictive.”

Public processes can sometimes complicate projects too, according to Higgins. The CRC is facing delays, he believes, because its project managers are trying to please every public group rather than focus on engineering aspects.

Of course, public and environmental processes were put in place to ensure that bridge projects do not cause severe damage to communities and wildlife. Before policies were established, projects moved faster, but often at a price, said Bert Hartman, bridge program managing engineer for the Oregon Department of Transportation.

“I’ve seen times in the past where we completely replace streams with bridges – we don’t do that anymore,” he said. “There’s less freedom maybe than there was in the past, but that’s good sometimes.”

Higgins also acknowledged that regulatory processes can be beneficial, which is why he believes engineers must become more accustomed to them. He cited the Sellwood Bridge replacement project, in which Multnomah County officials and local residents and business owners reached an agreement, as a good example of engineers going through the processes but also maintaining the bridge’s structural integrity.

“Engineers need to better adapt to this process and be more proactive with the public to better communicate the technical requirements,” he said.

However, there needs to be more cooperation by governmental and environmental interests as well, McGee said.

“There’s going to have to be some environmental pushback from our engineering sector,” he said. “We can’t do anything anymore.”

[RED_PDXer]

Originally Posted by JordanL

That area of I-5 needs to be widened if only for freight traffic.

Several years ago, Portland created is comprehensive transportation plan, which considered the next 50 years of growth, and how to manage it across all modes.

While it emphasized alternative modes for commuting, it noted that the current freeway system would be inadequate within 50 years, even if freight was the only thing traveling on it. That is, if all commuting was done by modes other than cars, our freeway system would still not be adequate for the amount of freight traffic that would be using the system at that time.

I don't believe this for a second. I think Portland is in the process of updating its comprehensive plan documents. If this statement is in there, I imagine it'll be revised back to reality. Freight regularly makes up anywhere from 2-10% of traffic on the highway system, depending on where you are. Freight truck traffic would need to grow by about 1000% to take up the current capacity. Neither the ports, population, or employment are expected to grow anywhere near that level. The CRC project just found itself in a $900 million budget deficit (from lost toll revenue) when it updated its traffic models to reflect actual growth levels. That update just a year ago shows how poorly the older models predicted actual traffic.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by RED_PDXer

I don't believe this for a second.

Agreed. Widening there is the sort of thing that sounds good in theory but would be a disaster in reality so long as I-5 is routed straight into Portland instead of around it.

[Shilo Rune 96]

Tigard City Council approves final land-use plans for high capacity transit

TIGARD -- At tonight's meeting, Tigard City Council unanimously approved a final report for land-use plans tied to bringing light rail, commuter rail or bus transit options to the city.

The approval, the latest step in a multi-tiered effort, accepts the blueprints for creating station communities around Metro's Southwest Corridor Plan for high capacity transit.

It is a green light for the city to start looking at implementation strategies for the community concepts in the plan.
More to come.

-- Findley Merritt

http://www.oregonlive.com/tigard/ind..._river_default

[Grantenfuego]

Great news, but the timeline on this makes me anxious. Most articles read that this project is at least a decade away from even starting.

[bvpcvm]

Clackamas County, King City voters approve anti-rail measures

The measures passed 60-40.