Portland Transit | TriMet/Mass Transit News

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by RED_PDXer

FYI - Denver has a pretty serious transit system. Voters approved a huge system expansion years ago and although they suffered from the recession, they've gone after public private partnerships to fund a couple recent lines. Their light rail has way fewer stations per mile and much faster too..

Denver has a nice light rail system, but Portland is still better. Portland has an annual ridership of 40 million compared to Denver's 24 million. I am not knocking Denver's system because it is a good system, but much of their lines are duplicate lines that run to various spurs.

I think if the Portland metro were to expand light rail on the westside to match what we have on the eastside, we would have a pretty amazing and serious transit system, but even now, Portland has a pretty great transit system.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

I have the impression that when middle-class Portlanders (i.e. the people whose opinions are considered relevant by policymakers) think about improving the transit system, they ONLY think about expanding the light rail and streetcar network, never about adding more bus routes or buses. Why is this?

It seems that despite all the new development (hence potential ridership) along transit corridors in downtown, NW, Mississippi/Williams/Interstate, Alberta, inner Eastside, Montavilla, Gateway, &c., bus service hasn't improved one iota, and has only gotten more expensive, since a decade ago when I last lived in Portland. That's my experience when I return to visit. Buses are just as infrequent, transfers just as unreliable. It inevitably takes twice as long to get anywhere on the bus as it would with a car or bicycle.

I've got nothing against trains, but buses are the backbone of any public transit system and this is especially true in a low-density city like Portland. Buses and trains complement each other, but without reliable bus service, almost nobody will consider selling their car or foregoing their parking pass to buy a season ticket for transit. Improving the scope and ridership of the bus network should be done first, but it seems like it's not even an afterthought. It almost seems like deliberate blindness not to realize this.

This has a lot to do with traffic, buses have to sit in the same traffic cars do which creates inconsistencies with time. Buses should be used more in the sense of feeders and by providing service to areas that has yet to get light rail or streetcars.

Streetcars in Portland are so-so, I personally don't think we use them correctly because we should be running two streetcars at a time rather than individual cars, and they should be treated more like a small light rail system rather than a bus on rails.

Another issue with buses over trains is that in low density cities, both work but people don't like to give up their cars to make transfers. It is more likely someone is going to drive to a park and ride to take a train in than they would walk to a bus stop, take that to a light rail stop, and then take a train in. As traffic gets worse and the city gets more dense, this issue of making one transfer becomes less of an issue, but for the low density suburban areas, park and rides are still going to be key to the success of any transit system. We also need to stop subsidizing car parking in downtown, that just goes against what Portland is.

[Encolpius]

What I'm talking about is that bus service within Portland itself is inadequate, that is, far too infrequent. Bus ridership has been flat since 2000 or earlier because the bus network's been completely neglected, and that hurts the viability of the transit network as a whole. Rail is great for many reasons, the streetcar in particular is evidently a fantastic development tool, but on its own it's not the most practical or cost-effective way to provide comprehensive service to the whole city.

Look, I now live in London, which has a world-renowned rail network and atrocious congestion on surface streets during rush hour. Nevertheless it has 1.3 billion trips/year on the Tube, but more than 2.4 billion trips on buses (ordinary buses, not BRT). Nobody could get around without them, particularly in the south and east (where most people can afford to live) or when making trips that don't pass through the central city. If buses are still far and away the most critical component in London's network, you can bet they'll continue to be the most important part of Portland's network even when we've got light rail running up Powell and Sandy and a streetcar going to LO.

But I think well-intentioned middle-class Portlanders (and Americans in general) typically don't get this because of stupid American class prejudice against buses, because buses aren't sexy, and because buses don't impress visitors from out of town. Their banality means that investment in buses isn't very effective at virtue signalling that Portland is green and innovative and trendy. Too bad. We'd like to have a great transit system but we just don't know how to do it.

Also, despite the notorious cost of living here in London, despite the fact that buses were long ago privatized under the Tories, a full-fare bus ride with one transfer is £1.50 ($2), less than it costs in Portland. What's with that?

[RED_PDXer]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

What I'm talking about is that bus service within Portland itself is inadequate, that is, far too infrequent. Bus ridership has been flat since 2000 or earlier because the bus network's been completely neglected, and that hurts the viability of the transit network as a whole. Rail is great for many reasons, the streetcar in particular is evidently a fantastic development tool, but on its own it's not the most practical or cost-effective way to provide comprehensive service to the whole city.

Look, I now live in London, which has a world-renowned rail network and atrocious congestion on surface streets during rush hour. Nevertheless it has 1.3 billion trips/year on the Tube, but more than 2.4 billion trips on buses (ordinary buses, not BRT). Nobody could get around without them, particularly in the south and east (where most people can afford to live) or when making trips that don't pass through the central city. If buses are still far and away the most critical component in London's network, you can bet they'll continue to be the most important part of Portland's network even when we've got light rail running up Powell and Sandy and a streetcar going to LO.

But I think well-intentioned middle-class Portlanders (and Americans in general) typically don't get this because of stupid American class prejudice against buses, because buses aren't sexy, and because buses don't impress visitors from out of town. Their banality means that investment in buses isn't very effective at virtue signalling that Portland is green and innovative and trendy. Too bad. We'd like to have a great transit system but we just don't know how to do it.

Also, despite the notorious cost of living here in London, despite the fact that buses were long ago privatized under the Tories, a full-fare bus ride with one transfer is £1.50 ($2), less than it costs in Portland. What's with that?

London is in a much different class of international city than Portland is. From my limited understanding, doesn't the congestion pricing scheme subsidize transit fares? Also, I recall a lot of the regular bus service has priority lanes (at least from what I saw). It has been one of the world's largest cities for centuries, so I'm not sure the comparison is helpful.

That said, I will point out that TriMet has grown bus service by about 3-4% in the bus system each year in the past couple years and has every intention of continuing to grow it thanks to two major new sources of revenue - the individual payroll tax that will go into effect next year and the increase in the employer payroll tax that went into effect a couple years back. The problem that I see is that a chunk of that added service just goes to maintain the frequencies that we had 10 years ago due to the slower speeds of running in mixed traffic. We need to advocate for more transit-only lanes leading into and out of downtown. The City and TriMet have talked about this issue recently in the media, but I have yet to see it actually happen. It's frustrating because it's so low cost by adding pavement markers.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

What I'm talking about is that bus service within Portland itself is inadequate, that is, far too infrequent. Bus ridership has been flat since 2000 or earlier because the bus network's been completely neglected, and that hurts the viability of the transit network as a whole. Rail is great for many reasons, the streetcar in particular is evidently a fantastic development tool, but on its own it's not the most practical or cost-effective way to provide comprehensive service to the whole city.

Look, I now live in London, which has a world-renowned rail network and atrocious congestion on surface streets during rush hour. Nevertheless it has 1.3 billion trips/year on the Tube, but more than 2.4 billion trips on buses (ordinary buses, not BRT). Nobody could get around without them, particularly in the south and east (where most people can afford to live) or when making trips that don't pass through the central city. If buses are still far and away the most critical component in London's network, you can bet they'll continue to be the most important part of Portland's network even when we've got light rail running up Powell and Sandy and a streetcar going to LO.

But I think well-intentioned middle-class Portlanders (and Americans in general) typically don't get this because of stupid American class prejudice against buses, because buses aren't sexy, and because buses don't impress visitors from out of town. Their banality means that investment in buses isn't very effective at virtue signalling that Portland is green and innovative and trendy. Too bad. We'd like to have a great transit system but we just don't know how to do it.

Also, despite the notorious cost of living here in London, despite the fact that buses were long ago privatized under the Tories, a full-fare bus ride with one transfer is £1.50 ($2), less than it costs in Portland. What's with that?

Trimet has a survey out now as they look to improve the bus lines, including making some like 24 hour lines. It is worth filling out so that they have an idea of what needs improving.

As for the cost to ride, that is something subsidized by the city and possibly state. Now keep in mind, it might be $2 for a fare in London with one transfer, but Portland it is $2.50 for two and a half hours, as many transfers as you need, or you can get a $5 all day pass and transfer as much as you like in an entire day.

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

Also, despite the notorious cost of living here in London, despite the fact that buses were long ago privatized under the Tories, a full-fare bus ride with one transfer is £1.50 ($2), less than it costs in Portland. What's with that?

That's somewhat cherry picked, as that price is valid on bus only and the transfer is only valid for one hour (vs 2.5 hours here). The fare structure in London is pretty byzantine, but goes up quickly from the £1.50 example you gave. In London the maximum daily fares are between £6.60 [$8.72] and £12 [$15.86] (for zones 1-6; much more if you use Oyster for travel far out into the suburbs). Our daily maximum is $5. On balance using public transport is much cheaper in Portland than it is in London.

[eric cantona]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

But I think well-intentioned middle-class Portlanders (and Americans in general) typically don't get this because of stupid American class prejudice against buses, because buses aren't sexy, and because buses don't impress visitors from out of town. Their banality means that investment in buses isn't very effective at virtue signalling that Portland is green and innovative and trendy. Too bad. We'd like to have a great transit system but we just don't know how to do it.

this is something I've often pondered, and I think you're touching on a very important issue here. from living here for over 50 years my experience has been that buses are seen as a primarily lower-class (economically speaking) option. the advancement of alternate, and relatively low-cost, car-sharing/ride-sharing services have strengthened that divide, I suspect. sure, you'll see middle-class folks using it as a commuting option, but you'll likely never see those same people hopping a bus to go to dinner or a movie.

this perception most likely extends to the ability of TriMet to find adequate funding support for maintenance and expansion of bus service, whether that's an internal prejudice or an impediment for getting votes on ballot measures.

until middle-class and upper middle-class Portlanders view buses in the same light they view MAX or the Streetcar we will be very unlikely to have the robust transit system we need to combat growing traffic congestion. seems like a chicken/egg kinda thing, though. do you "make buses sexier", or do you run an ad campaign targeting the middle-class, or... what?

I've been to London a couple of times and have always been impressed by how many people of different classes use the buses as a matter of course. hoping that someday Portland can be like that.

[Encolpius]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

That's somewhat cherry picked, as that price is valid on bus only and the transfer is only valid for one hour (vs 2.5 hours here). The fare structure in London is pretty byzantine, but goes up quickly from the £1.50 example you gave. In London the maximum daily fares are between £6.60 [$8.72] and £12 [$15.86] (for zones 1-6; much more if you use Oyster for travel far out into the suburbs). Our daily maximum is $5. On balance using public transport is much cheaper in Portland than it is in London.

Some fair points, but I haven't cherry-picked very much; basically I just left out the Tube and some commuter rail options because they'd distort the comparison; the fare structure is designed to strongly discourage travelling on the congested underground lines, especially during peak hours. Otherwise, whether travelling on buses, Overground (heavy rail), or the light rail network, DLR, you generally pay £1.50. Only on the Overground does that rise to £1.70 ($2.25) during peak hours -- still cheaper than a Tri-met fare. As for a daily ticket, apples-to-apples comparison (?): the daily max on bus and light rail (all zones) is £4.50 ($6).

Anyway, I don't mention the cost of using public transit here because it's remarkably cheap for a major city, but only because things in London are generally so expensive and public services have suffered years and years of devastating cuts. Fwiw, when I lived in Mexico City the subway cost $2.50 pesos, equivalent at the time to $0.20 USD. Not that that's a very good comparator city to Portland either, but still. Imo, public transport should always be completely free for residents, as it is for people who live in Tallinn, the Estonian capital (Estonia is the newest member of Scandinavia). Free (i.e., taxpayer-funded) and efficient transport makes equals of all a city's residents. And anyway, why should the burden of paying for public transport fall more heavily on those who use it than on those who selfishly insist on driving (on publicly-funded roads)?

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

Some fair points, but I haven't cherry-picked very much; basically I just left out the Tube and some commuter rail options because they'd distort the comparison; the fare structure is designed to strongly discourage travelling on the congested underground lines, especially during peak hours. Otherwise, whether travelling on buses, Overground (heavy rail), or the light rail network, DLR, you generally pay £1.50. Only on the Overground does that rise to £1.70 ($2.25) during peak hours -- still cheaper than a Tri-met fare. As for a daily ticket, apples-to-apples comparison (?): the daily max on bus and light rail (all zones) is £4.50 ($6).

Anyway, I don't mention the cost of using public transit here because it's remarkably cheap for a major city, but only because things in London are generally so expensive and public services have suffered years and years of devastating cuts. Fwiw, when I lived in Mexico City the subway cost $2.50 pesos, equivalent at the time to $0.20 USD. Not that that's a very good comparator city to Portland either, but still. Imo, public transport should always be completely free for residents, as it is for people who live in Tallinn, the Estonian capital (Estonia is the newest member of Scandinavia). Free (i.e., taxpayer-funded) and efficient transport makes equals of all a city's residents. And anyway, why should the burden of paying for public transport fall more heavily on those who use it than on those who selfishly insist on driving (on publicly-funded roads)?

You probably should have started with this rather than try to compare Portland to London...

[hat]

From a Tribune article way back in October. I did not realize Gateway will be getting another station and a reconfiguration of the Red Line. Article

"TriMet would convert single-track sections to double-track sections at Gateway and PDX. At Gateway, TriMet would reconfigure the Red Line to approach the station from the north, instead of the current loop and approach from the south. TriMet would add a second platform for Red Line trains, and expand its storage facility in Gresham."

Apologies if this has already been linked elsewhere.

[cityscapes]

Originally Posted by hat

From a Tribune article way back in October. I did not realize Gateway will be getting another station and a reconfiguration of the Red Line. Article

"TriMet would convert single-track sections to double-track sections at Gateway and PDX. At Gateway, TriMet would reconfigure the Red Line to approach the station from the north, instead of the current loop and approach from the south. TriMet would add a second platform for Red Line trains, and expand its storage facility in Gresham."

Apologies if this has already been linked elsewhere.

Also from that same article: "Lehto said TriMet has heard from stakeholders at both major employers that delays through downtown Portland inhibit employees from taking light rail."

So, about that tunnel...

[maccoinnich]

That's the first I've heard of this but that could be huge. I found a PDF with diagrams of how this would work.

It would be great if they could configure the trackwork so it would make it possible to increase frequency to the airport in the future by running trains to PDX from Gresham or Clackamas Town Center. Looking at the diagram that would be possible in the direction departing the airport, but not to the airport (unless trains skipped Gateway or reversed there).

[dubu]

they should have the green line go from the clackamas town center to the airport. theres three lines that use the same tracks along i84. then later extend the green line further south, that would make the i84 tracks last a little longer. dont they have to replace those tracks soon?

[hat]

Originally Posted by maccoinnich

That's the first I've heard of this but that could be huge. I found a PDF with diagrams of how this would work.

It would be great if they could configure the trackwork so it would make it possible to increase frequency to the airport in the future by running trains to PDX from Gresham or Clackamas Town Center. Looking at the diagram that would be possible in the direction departing the airport, but not to the airport (unless trains skipped Gateway or reversed there).

The variability map was surprising to say the least. The IRQ bottleneck and Gateway's merging Red line clearly cause delays. But I was not expecting variable running time on the W. Bound track across the Tillicum. Does this mean it is running at capacity?!

This new Gateway station is going to be a godsend.

[urbanlife]

That is awesome, though I don't like the extending the Red Line on the westside. The Red Line should be extended on a new line so that the westside could have a true second line.

[RED_PDXer]

I wish the red line would pass up Gateway. It would be a quicker trip to downtown and be more competitive with uber, lyft and taxis. Due to regional planning ideology it will continue to make landfall at Gateway, which has no significant tourist market.

[dubu]

It should have been built like that, with the red line not stopping at gateway and gateway built between glisan and burnside. People miss the green line going south when they are on the blue line going west. That happend to me a few times when I lived in Portland. Or sometimes the other way around. Getting on the blue line going west sometimes you can’t fit on the train and have to wait for another train.

They probably built it there because of Fred mayer and all the stores there. Of it was a little further south there could be a pedestrian bridge going across the freeway. There’s also two bridges because of glisan and burnside. People would be more likely to ride the max if you don’t have to walk along a busy street to get to the stop, or ride a bike along a street.

[MarkDaMan]

TriMet rolls out new bus lines in east Portland, Gresham and the westside
Posted March 01, 2018 at 12:40 PM | Updated
M-- Andrew Theen atheen@oregonian.com

http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/...art_river_home

TriMet will start bus service on three new lines Monday, including a north-south route expected to increase service in underserved east Portland.

The new lines are among the specific improvements the transit agency committed to make in 2015 and represent a significant investment in east Portland in particular.

The new lines come as the agency is poised to make more additions to its bus service in the tri-county area thanks to an influx of cash from the state transportation package approved in 2017 and a boost in payroll taxes levied on employers.

In addition to the new lines, TriMet is improving connections on a number of routes and adding morning and evening service on others.

On Wednesday, TriMet General Counsel Shelley Devine described the east Portland route as “highly anticipated and highly requested.”

Many frequent bus commuters don’t live in the central city, where access to frequent bus transit is better, and have been pushed out by housing prices and find themselves in areas where north-south connections are few and far between.

Here’s a look at some of the changes headed your way.

...(continues)

[MarkDaMan]

http://www.oregonlive.com/roadreport...lotting_b.html

Portland wants help plotting bus-only lanes, bikeways and safer crossings in central city
Updated 3:16 PM; Posted 3:10 PM
By Andrew Theen atheen@oregonian.com
The Oregonian/OregonLive

Portland transportation officials say they have the cash in hand to create dedicated bus lanes, separated bikeways and safer pedestrian crossings in the central city.

Now they want your feedback on where to start with the estimated $9 million in projects during the next five years.

Portland Bureau of Transportation posted an interactive map Monday as part of its long-awaited Central City in Motion plan, an effort officials say focuses on speeding up buses on both sides of the Willamette River, creating new "low-stress bikeways" and making pedestrian crossings safer.

The traffic plan is part of the city's ongoing Central City 2035 planning effort, which has been in the offing for years and plots growth into the next two decades.

...(continues)

Take the survey here.

[winstonLT5]

The Koch brothers are waging a sophisticated fight against public transit initiatives across the U.S. And they are winning. The Kochs’ opposition to transit spending stems from their longstanding free-market, libertarian philosophy. It also dovetails nicely with their financial interests, which benefit from automobiles and highways. As if automobile ownership in this country isn't already heavily subsidized...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/c...c-transit.html

How the Koch Brothers Are Killing Public Transit Projects Around the Country
By Hiroko Tabuchi
June 19, 2018

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — A team of political activists huddled at a Hardee’s one rainy Saturday, wolfing down a breakfast of biscuits and gravy. Then they descended on Antioch, a quiet Nashville suburb, armed with iPads full of voter data and a fiery script.

The group, the local chapter for Americans for Prosperity, which is financed by the oil billionaires Charles G. and David H. Koch to advance conservative causes, fanned out and began strategically knocking on doors. Their targets: voters most likely to oppose a local plan to build light-rail trains, a traffic-easing tunnel and new bus routes.

“Do you agree that raising the sales tax to the highest rate in the nation must be stopped?” Samuel Nienow, one of the organizers, asked a startled man who answered the door at his ranch-style home in March. “Can we count on you to vote ‘no’ on the transit plan?”

In cities and counties across the country — including Little Rock, Ark.; Phoenix, Ariz.; southeast Michigan; central Utah; and here in Tennessee — the Koch brothers are fueling a fight against public transit, an offshoot of their longstanding national crusade for lower taxes and smaller government.

At the heart of their effort is a network of activists who use a sophisticated data service built by the Kochs...

...(continues)