Portland Transit | TriMet/Mass Transit News

[Tim the Enchanter]

Originally Posted by WestCoast

started seeing new signage downtown for the yellow/green lines going down 5th and 6th.

looks great.


Sort of surprised it will be another 10 months before service is running, but I guess there is still plenty of work and testing to do?

I also saw some early frame work for one of the stops, it was the stop on 5th between Main and Salmon.

Hopefully we will see more stuff for the various stops in the near future.

[NJD]

Next ‘New Deal’
Portland Business Journal - by Erik Siemers Business Journal staff writer

Government officials want to kick-start the dormant regional economy with billions of dollars in public works projects, leaving local manufacturers and contractors eager to nab a share.

Plans such as Gov. Ted Kulongoski’s proposal to spend $500 million on transportation projects annually over several years has Portland Bolt & Manufacturing Co. hopeful to fill its growing northwest Portland plant.

“Our forecasting on what the future holds isn’t sure. We’re tied to infrastructure jobs like light rail and highway work,” said Adam Oakley, Portland Bolt’s marketing manager. “Our hope is with Kulongoski’s new bill to spend more on roads and bridges. That ties directly into what we do.”

Similar hope echoes from other Portland manufacturers and contractors as government leaders — from Kulongoski to Mayor-elect Sam Adams to President-elect Barack Obama — advocate for public works projects to create jobs and stimulate the economy.

Besides Kulongoksi’s plan, which promises 6,700 jobs per year across the first five years, city commissioners are seeking federal funds for $1.3 billion in public works projects creating 8,800 jobs. Obama has pitched a $175 billion economic recovery plan that includes public works spending, according to reports.

Economists and policy experts see public investment in infrastructure as an effective move in a downturn, adding jobs and putting cash in the pockets of consumers while embarking upon critical repair and construction projects.

“I don’t think it’s a reason in a downturn just for a state to build pyramids,” said Joe A. Stone, an economics professor at the University of Oregon. “But if we need a road improvement project, it probably is a time to do it when costs will be lower because construction firms don’t have so many other projects.”

While excited about the prospect of filling their shops with work, Portland-area companies are also cautious. They note that big projects can take up to a year, if not longer, to trickle down to subcontractors.

“At this point we’re feeling a bit more buoyant. But on the other hand, what we’re not seeing is an immediate translation of that into orders,” said Albert England, chief operating officer at the Irwin-Hodson Co., a commercial printer whose work includes traffic signs. “You have to be positive about the future. But you have to be prepared in the event your optimism is unfounded.”

Gene Nelson owns Sundown Electric Co., a Forest Grove-based company that specializes in electrical work for highway infrastructure projects.

A boost in government public works jobs would be welcome, especially since work from the Oregon Department of Transportation has dwindled in recent months.

While the new spending plans are encouraging, Nelson is also quick to temper expectations of immediate job growth.

“This new influx, we may not see for six, eight months, maybe a year,” he said. “Nobody’s going to run out and hire a bunch of people for something that’s not going to happen this year.”

Governments using public works projects as an agent of economic stimulus harkens to the days of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, when the government made massive investments in public projects to spur job growth at a time of economic turmoil.

Speaking to House and Senate Interim Transportation Committees last week, Kulongoski drew on that history to make a case for his so-called “Jobs and Transportation Act of 2009.”

“I will remind you that national leaders — including presidents Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Reagan — all used investments in transportation to help pull America’s economy out of a downward spiral,” he said. “In doing so, they earned for our nation both economic and national security dividends.”

Kulongoski’s plan calls for spending $499 million per year on a range of programs, from basic road maintenance, to keeping the Columbia River Crossing project running to investments in renewable energy technologies for transportation. The work is projected to support 6,700 jobs a year across the first five years.

The projects would be paid for by increases in vehicle registration and title fees, a 2-cent fuel tax increase, and a new first-time title fee.

Officials in the governor’s office said his upcoming biennial budget, to be unveiled Dec. 1, is also expected to address capital construction at universities.

Similarly, Portland city commissioners have submitted funding requests to the federal government for 64 public works projects valued at $1.3 billion. The projects would create 8,800 jobs through June 2010 and mostly include infrastructure upgrades. They also include a $428 million plan for various water supply improvements.

[zilfondel]

Well, at least prices are going down, so it should be cheaper to build now because of deflation and $49/barrel oil prices.

[electricron]

Transportation projects do take a lot of time to get environmental clearances, up to 10 years from scratch.

On the other hand, there are a lot of transportation projects that already have environmental clearances that are gathering dust because funding isn't available. Once funds become available, it shouldn't take long to complete the bidding process and for construction to start.

Has the I 5 bridge project completed it's EIS yet?
If yes, do the State Transportation Departments have funding available for the local match?

[MightyAlweg]

Mr. Obama has announced his big proposal to spend big to put 2.5 Million people to work "building roads and bridges".

I will find it absolutely fascinating to watch how President Obama performs this tricky high-wire act getting funding for tens of Billions of dollars in road, bridge and highway funding passed, while simultaneously keeping his credibility with the anti-car left that supported his bid for the White House.

The Columbia River Crossing is a perfect example; a glaring need to replace a 90 year old bridge that forms the backbone of the sole Interstate Highway on the West Coast. And with only three lanes of travel in each direction it's a rather tiny project compared to the 10+ lane bridges that routinely get built in major metro areas around the country.

To anyone from Washington (or Chicago), the CRC would seem like a no-brainer to not only replace the country's crumbling infrastructure, but to also provide good jobs to people who need them in the next few years. And yet many people are vehemently opposed to replacing any part of that bridge that dares carry a private automobile propelled by an internal combustion engine.

I can't wait to see how people in Portland react to a federal proposal blessed by President Obama to help fund the CRC project and get that freeway going.

[65MAX]

You're absolutely right, this is a no-brainer. Anywhere else in the country would have already built this by now (or their local equivalent). And they would have done it without rail transit. Or bike and pedestrian access. The CRC has all of that and people STILL get bent out of shape. For them, only the status quo will do, anything new or improved is evil. Just build the damn thing.

Another thing these anti-car people fail to realize is that automobiles will not always be internal combustion. They will be alternatively-powered; electric, liquid hydrogen, fuel cell, nuclear fusion, whatever. There will STILL be millions of cars on the roads and highways even after gas and oil are no longer used to power them.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

You're absolutely right, this is a no-brainer. Anywhere else in the country would have already built this by now (or their local equivalent). And they would have done it without rail transit. Or bike and pedestrian access. The CRC has all of that and people STILL get bent out of shape. For them, only the status quo will do, anything new or improved is evil. Just build the damn thing.

Another thing these anti-car people fail to realize is that automobiles will not always be internal combustion. They will be alternatively-powered; electric, liquid hydrogen, fuel cell, nuclear fusion, whatever. There will STILL be millions of cars on the roads and highways even after gas and oil are no longer used to power them.

Really? Have you checked the number of lanes of IH 5 through Portland?

Widen this bridge, you will also have to widen 20 miles of IH 5, in urban areas of Oregon alone. It's not just a bridge project across the Columbia River. I also doubt the bridge is the sole cause of traffic gridlock either.

[philopdx]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

You're absolutely right, this is a no-brainer. Anywhere else in the country would have already built this by now (or their local equivalent). And they would have done it without rail transit. Or bike and pedestrian access. The CRC has all of that and people STILL get bent out of shape. For them, only the status quo will do, anything new or improved is evil. Just build the damn thing.

Another thing these anti-car people fail to realize is that automobiles will not always be internal combustion. They will be alternatively-powered; electric, liquid hydrogen, fuel cell, nuclear fusion, whatever. There will STILL be millions of cars on the roads and highways even after gas and oil are no longer used to power them.

I agree, to a limited extent. And as someone currently who doesn't own a car and someone who supported the President Elect, I guess I am a card-carrying member of the "anti-car left" brigade. Although I strongly support alternatives to automobile use, I do think some sort of personal transport will always be around.

That being said, I've seen the drawbacks of a car-based lifestyle, even excluding carbon from the equation.

I lived most of my life in the leafy suburbs of the deep south surrounded by fresh, ever-expanding black-top. We had no other options but automobile travel, so when gridlock arrived, it generally took about 15 years to widen 10-15 miles of interstate, just in time to - you guessed it - begin widening it again!!

And for some stubborn reason, sprawl kept following the path blazed by that fresh black top. For the new transplants to outlying counties, what was once a 10 minute commute became 30, 40, 50 minutes.

At some point, by spending an increasing fraction of our lives in cars commuting longer distances to work, don't we deprive the economy the productivity it needs to keep growing?

Also, as pasture lands are gobbled up by the exurbs, you get an exacerbated runoff problem, a greater urban heat island effect and worse air quality.

And of course, the deep south has quite a prodigious appetite for the federal subsidies that make all those highways possible. In contrast, some places like Portland have used the federal money available to build transportation that doesn't take 15 years to scale up if necessary.

Not that Portland is perfect in its land use and transportation allocation decisions, but I do admire the fact that they tried something different and it seems to have paid off handsomely.

So in sum, I think the bridges need replacing, but it won't solve the problem of gridlock elsewhere on I-5. I also think a robust transit network should be developed alongside any road replacements or upgrades so that we have established right of way for greater scalability in the future!

Hopefully, along the way, we can avoid the fates of Atlanta or DFW. (Although, even they have now come to their senses and are busy developing alternatives to expanding highways exclusively)

[MightyAlweg]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

Another thing these anti-car people fail to realize is that automobiles will not always be internal combustion. They will be alternatively-powered; electric, liquid hydrogen, fuel cell, nuclear fusion, whatever. There will STILL be millions of cars on the roads and highways even after gas and oil are no longer used to power them.

Great point! Even with gasoline powered internal combustion engines, they've become dramatically more efficient and cleaner in just the past 10 years, after already increasing their efficiency in the 1970's and 80's and 90's. The average 2009 Honda Accord now emits no more pollutants in hundreds of thousands of driven miles than the average car of 1955 did in just one thousand driven miles.

I'm off to the Los Angeles Auto Show on Monday afternoon, and while I will head straight to check out the new 2010 Mustang with the newly revised 4.6L 315 horsepower V8 (that gets 25 miles per gallon freeway), I will also be interested to see the growing list of hybrid cars for sale, as well as amazing new cars like the new 2009 Honda FCX Clarity hydrogen fuel cell car now for sale to regular consumers and currently driving the roads of Southern California emiting nothing but water vapor.

In 20 years when the new Columbia River bridge is long since completed, I can't even imagine the amazing fleet of gas-hybrid, hydrogen-hybrid, pure-electric, and clean gasoline cars and trucks that will be using it! Things always get better, with technology and human ingenuity leading the way, and it boggles my mind that people think the cars of 2020 will be belching fumes and guzzling gas like the cars of 1955.

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by electricron

Really? Have you checked the number of lanes of IH 5 through Portland?

Widen this bridge, you will also have to widen 20 miles of IH 5, in urban areas of Oregon alone. It's not just a bridge project across the Columbia River. I also doubt the bridge is the sole cause of traffic gridlock either.

No, it's not just I-5 that feeds the Interstate Bridge. From the north, you also have Hwys 14 and 500, plus any traffic from DT Vancouver or the Port that needs to go south. Likewise from the south, you have Jantzen Beach (WA shoppers heading home), MLK, Interstate Ave and Marine Drive all feeding the bridge.

I-5 itself doesn't need to be widened beyond its current 3 lanes each way (or soon-to-be 3 lanes SB at Delta Park). Like I-84, there'll always be heavy traffic on I-5, you can't build enough lanes to eliminate it. But a new bridge will help alleviate the bottleneck. Why would anybody be against that?

[65MAX]

Incidently, it took less than one year to plan, fund and build a brand new major freeway bridge (I-35W, I believe) over the Mississippi in Minneapolis. Granted, they had a more urgent need because of the collapse. Just saying, we shouldn't wait so long to make needed upgrades to our infrastructure. This goes for the Sellwood, too.

[zilfondel]

Why? Because tolling the existing bridge now would significantly reduce congestion today - and help pay for maintenance of the freeway system (which is running out of money).

Encouraging Clark County Sprawl is not a good thing. McMansions in exurbs is not a very effective housing strategy, as the current housing bubble crisis has showed us. Also, Metro believes that it costs more money to develop greenfield sites rather than infill sites. Why would anybody be against that?

Oh wait... maybe there is an urban sprawl agenda in the suburban developers and auto companies that is supporting and pushing for the bridge? Just maybe???

I believe that investing hundreds of millions of Oregon transportation taxpayer dollars to rebuild Washington's freeways is a very sad investment, particularly when it will simply accelerate suburban sprawl in Clark County and, without proper management of the freeway lanes that are there, will simply get filled up again.

I have heard far better, and less costly strategies involving realigning the RR and freeway bridges for ship traffic (which would minimize the # of bridge raises), raising the freeway bridges slightly, fixing the onramp and offramps to the island, and building a MAX/ped/arterial bridge to Vancouver. I read it on the portland transport blog about a year ago or more, but was predicted to save billions of $$.

By keeping the CRC idea around for all these years means what exactly? They're just waiting until everyone accepts it even if its a terrible idea? Sounds like defeat to me!

[zilfondel]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

Incidently, it took less than one year to plan, fund and build a brand new major freeway bridge (I-35W, I believe) over the Mississippi in Minneapolis. Granted, they had a more urgent need because of the collapse. Just saying, we shouldn't wait so long to make needed upgrades to our infrastructure. This goes for the Sellwood, too.

THere was a clear-cut need to rebuild that bridge in Minn: their old one collapsed.

There is NOT a clear-cut need to rebuild a bridge that is doing its job. Instead, there is still debate as to:

-do we really need a new bridge?
-do we need to expand capacity?
-do we need tolls?
-do we need MAX?

these are still being debated. The CRC commission has just been a tool of freight/sprawl lobbyists and their own self-interest in promoting a new bridge and spending lots of $$$ for "jobs." However, the bridge will do practically nothing but allow more Clark County commuters access to north portland. How does more traffic in nopo benifit portlanders?

This is a city that has killed 2 freeways already. I'd rather see more alternative transportation than handouts to Clark Co., who can't even reign in the sprawl that they've been generating.

[urbanlife]

I do support Obama's idea of rebuilding bridges and roads and I support being anti car.

When the bridge collapsed in Minnesota, governments were hit with a realization that many of the bridges in this country needed to be rebuilt or extra work needed to be provided to them. Our current president did little to add this, which he could of easily did what Obama is proposing and would of softened the job loss that is going on now. While improving our aging infrastructure. What is nice with Obama is that he understands the need for a "green economy" and I have a feeling with alot of these new projects, there will be a jump in rail projects as well, which we all know is good for Portland.

[Tim the Enchanter]

http://www.trimet.org/news/releases/nov24_wes.htm

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Tim the Enchanter

http://www.trimet.org/news/releases/nov24_wes.htm

That's a little disappointing, testing at the maximum speed of 60 mph.
Why not test up to 79 mph in spots, which these trains can do on FRA class 4 tracks?

I understand why they may not wish to go that fast in urban areas, but some areas on this line is more rural than urban, even if for a short mile or two.

[zilfondel]

Probably due to acceleration/stopping distances.

[Okstate]

^ Additionally, do those rural areas intend to stay that way?

[zilfondel]

I'm not familiar with the area that much, actually. Its part of the UGB area, so I would imagine that, unless those cities or Metro are setting aside some open space, then they will become developed.

I know there is some industry along the line as well.

[alexjon]

Between Bonita Rd. and Wilsonville are a lot of light manufacturing and shipping areas. Since shifts in these type of places start early, it'll be a good boon for development.

Tons of houses exist in that area, too.