HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #241  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2009, 6:41 PM
cab cab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 1,450
Remember this is the same company fighting the springwater connection on the eastbank of the river. They claim the Public ROW would infringe on their business. This forces the path to divert users into the freight area with high truck volume. Very dangerous for users. Stay out of our overground blackberry garbage filled shoreline you pesky kids! Oh yeah and let us use the public park in the westside for our personal business.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #242  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2009, 10:39 PM
65MAX's Avatar
65MAX 65MAX is offline
Karma Police
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: People's Republic of Portland
Posts: 2,138
It sounds like Trimet's already been proactive enough to design a bridge tall enough to accommodate these two ships based on future global warming water levels. If Yates makes his ship(s) taller, then that's not Trimet's responsibility, that's Yates killing his own business.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #243  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2009, 12:26 AM
nobody nobody is offline
Ah-choo.
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Portland
Posts: 433
What kind of backwards-ass idea is that anyway? I want to start a business that utilizes trucks that are twice as wide as standard lanes in Portland, so if ODOT and PBOT could just go ahead and widen all the roads I'll be using that would be great.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #244  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2009, 2:01 AM
tworivers's Avatar
tworivers tworivers is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Portland/Cascadia
Posts: 2,598
cab is right, these are the same jerks who were fighting the city over allowing the path to continue along the river when they were planning a jet ski business down there. Luckily, I think their court case has come to an end and was decided in favor of the city. Back when the new bridge was first being discussed I was hoping Tri-met would play nasty and use eminent domain to seize Yates' land just to make a point (how's that for "anti-business"? ) -- at the very least, this is a business that should be boycotted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #245  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2009, 7:59 AM
JordanL JordanL is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by tworivers View Post
cab is right, these are the same jerks who were fighting the city over allowing the path to continue along the river when they were planning a jet ski business down there. Luckily, I think their court case has come to an end and was decided in favor of the city. Back when the new bridge was first being discussed I was hoping Tri-met would play nasty and use eminent domain to seize Yates' land just to make a point (how's that for "anti-business"? ) -- at the very least, this is a business that should be boycotted.
Sorry, but when you have an important date, there's not many places to take a girl that compete with a riverboat cruise.

The next closest comparable cruise that I know of docks in Stevenson, WA. I'm sure there's others, but I don't know them.

EDIT:

You know, I just realized too that the Willamette is still like 30+ feet above sea level. Global warming wouldn't raise the river at all unless it increased rainfall... If the sea level raises over 30 feet, we have bigger problems than his cruise company.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #246  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2009, 5:25 PM
NJD's Avatar
NJD NJD is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland
Posts: 632
TriMet shares its thinking about Bybee MAX station plans

By Eric Norberg

The Bee, Nov 25, 2009




TriMet hosted a presentation and discussion about the progress of its planning for a light rail station at S.E. Bybee Boulevard, under the Bybee Bridge, at the Eastmoreland Grill on the evening of Monday, November 9.

A sizeable crowd was present to view the diagrams and illustrations, hear a discussion of the plans, and to ask questions and make suggestions.

It became clear that there were a number of people concerned about the dropping of plans to widen the north side of the Bybee Bridge, as it was designed to do when rebuilt recently, in order to provide a bus-stop turnout. TriMet spokespersons explained that, with bus stops nearby on both sides of the bridge, widening it did not seem cost-effective.

However, one diagram shown indicated that in response to this concern, TriMet had already planned to add a westbound bus stop on the bridge — without widening it. Loading and unloading buses would block westbound traffic, but the statistics suggest that buses would normally not stop westbound traffic more than a half minute at a time. Continued comment from attendees led the light rail officials present to agree to take another look at the widening idea, but it was clear they did not believe they had the budget for doing that.

Instead, the current thinking is to build stairways and elevators on both sides of the bridge for pedestrian access from the middle of the bridge to the station below. And, for security, tickets would have to be bought at the bridge level, before descending to the platform. “Nobody without a ticket could legally be on the platform,” it was explained. Other security features, including multiple closed-circuit TV cameras, would also be part of the installation.

Also causing some comment was the provision in the design for eastern-side widening S.E. McLoughlin Boulevard to three lanes each direction between Harold Street and Tacoma Street. However, this is not a TriMet plan; it’s a long-planned ODOT project, for which there has been and still is no funding. ODOT insists it will be done, but perhaps not for a couple of decades. But TriMet still has to allow space for the planned expansion.

TriMet also acknowledged the ongoing Westmoreland interest in a Harold Street station, by showing it on all route maps as a “future location”. The rails are to be constructed there in such a way as to allow a station to be added later, when funding is available for it.

The final design of the Portland-Milwaukie Light Rail line, and its stations and Park-and-Rides, is to be attained by sometime next year or in 2011; full funding is expected by 2012; Construction is planned for 2011-2015, and the line is projected to be open and running by 2015.

TriMet plans more meetings on aspects of the project, and develops mailing lists for meeting notifications from sign-in sheets at the meetings. They also notify the media, and THE BEE carries notice of such meetings affecting the area we serve in our monthly calendar listings.

For information on the project, call TriMet Community Affairs at 503/962-2150, or go online to: www.trimet.org/pm. You can sign up for e-mail meeting notifications there as well.

Also resources for the public are the 24 members of the project’s Citizen Advisory Committee. These include Michole Jensen, for Ardenwald-Johnson Creek; Lance Lindahl, for the Brooklyn neighborhood; Dan Packard for the Eastmoreland neighborhood; and Reid Kells for the Sellwood and Westmoreland neighborhoods.


ODOT studies McLoughlin onramp problem
MAX RIDER TRAFFIC


By Eric Norberg

The Bee, Nov 25, 2009




So, there is to be a 1,000-vehicle “park and ride” structure to be built east of McLoughlin Boulevard, and south of Tacoma Street, in the Ardenwald neighborhood.

Given that apparent fact, neighbors from Ardenwald and Sellwood are focusing on a single issue that will determine the degree to which each will encounter cut-through traffic every afternoon as Clackamas County MAX commuters disembark, get in their cars, and head south back home.

The issue centers on the short, single-lane entrance to S.E. McLoughlin Boulevard southbound from S.E. Tacoma Street. At a special “Tacoma Street Traffic Meeting” held at Ardenwald School on October 26th, the various agencies involved with the Portland-to-Milwaukie light rail project were confronted with something they apparently had not expected: This entrance to McLoughlin southbound is dangerous.

ODOT and TriMet estimate that at least half of the vehicles that will be using the parking structure come from, and will return to, Clackamas County. Those vehicles will easily be able to enter the parking area via a grade-level right turn from McLoughlin; but getting back onto McLoughlin Boulevard southbound will require crossing the Tacoma Street overpass, turning left, and entering from the short ramp.

The reason why the onramp issue is critical to both Ardenwald and to Sellwood is that if the southbound entrance to the highway is difficult, cars will back up as drivers wait for a safe opening — and that will cause drivers backed up in the queue to seek other ways to where they are going. On the east side, they could head up Johnson Creek Boulevard or south on S.E. 32nd past Providence Milwaukie Hospital into the City of Milwaukie. In Sellwood, they could keep going west on Tacoma and then turn south on any of the streets up to 17th.

The problem, as nearly everyone who has ever driven that short ramp is aware, is that it is situated on a blind curve, with very limited sightlines to oncoming traffic; and the right hand lane, which they are entering, is matched by a bus lane which turns into a right-turn lane for exit to Tacoma — but which clearly continues past that point as a third traffic lane.

Thus, drivers seeking to enter McLoughlin at that point must first try to wait for a gap in oncoming traffic which is hard to see, since the highway is bending to the right under the overpass — and then hope that any vehicle moving into the right-hand lane under the overpass is intending to exit, and not just continue south in the emerging right-hand lane.

Joseph Auth of ODOT, involved in this conversation, suggested that finding a way to make the right-hand lane under the overpass clearly an exit lane would resolve most of the perceived danger in pulling out into the same lane from the ramp. Just how this could reliably be done remains the problem.

Subsequent to the meeting, ODOT has had conversations with the Portland-Milwaukie Light Rail Citizens Advisory Committee, on which Reid Kells is the SMILE representative. Kells reports that ODOT is “currently examining the possibility of having the right-hand southbound lane of McLoughlin act as a slow-down lane for the two Southbound exits that leave just north of and just south of the Tacoma overpass. They’re also looking into the possibility of removing the stop sign at the base of the Southbound onramp and adding some space for a better acceleration and merge lane after southbound users enter McLoughlin.

“This would have the effect of keeping the onramp drained of users and ready to accept new users turning left from Tacoma. With enhanced signage and marking at the base of the onramp to keep pedestrians safe, this could be a really positive solution for keeping the southbound traffic flowing away from the Tacoma Park and Ride.”

Also at the October 26th Ardenwald meeting, neighbors also pointed out that people tend to cross McLoughlin, scrambling over the Jersey Barrier in the process, to avoid walking some distance to cross more safely at the Ochoco Street traffic light. It was suggested that one solution might be to construct a walking path from McLoughlin up to the Springwater Trail bridge over it, south of Tacoma. At present, ODOT has announced no plan to prevent this dangerous and illegal method of crossing a six-lane state highway that has a concrete barricade down the middle.

Last edited by NJD; Nov 25, 2009 at 5:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #247  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2009, 5:45 PM
NJD's Avatar
NJD NJD is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland
Posts: 632
no one has posted these, but here are the links for anyone interested in the actual design schematics of:

the bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure as well as the design for both bridge approaches and the Clinton-Division area: http://trimet.org/pdfs/pm/CAC/Septem...on_9-17-09.pdf

The Bridge design: http://trimet.org/pdfs/pm/CAC/Novemb...n_11_19_09.pdf

Milwaukie station design: http://trimet.org/pdfs/pm/CAC/Octobe...n_Concepts.pdf

Park Ave. station design: http://trimet.org/pdfs/pm/CAC/Octobe...s_10-15-09.pdf

Tacoma station and Bybee station design concepts slideshow: http://trimet.org/pdfs/pm/CAC/Novemb...ma_Nov2009.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #248  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2009, 8:56 PM
tworivers's Avatar
tworivers tworivers is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Portland/Cascadia
Posts: 2,598
Thanks for the links NJD. Very interesting to see the details.

Any idea what the overall vision is for the streetcar in the vicinity of the Schnitzer campus? I ask because I thought they were planning to run it up Bond, whereas these schematics show the tracks on Moody. Will there be separate tracks on Bond someday (presumably, once the barge folks *finally* vacate) for the South Waterfront/LO extension, i.e. will the tracks split off at Riverplace, one set on Moody for the bridge connection and another set on Bond for points south?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #249  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2009, 1:23 AM
NJD's Avatar
NJD NJD is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland
Posts: 632
^ change of plans apparently. now it looks like the streetcar is double tracked on Moody all the way to the OHSU building for now (stimulus project underway), then in the future (post-zidell obviously) the streetcar will continue on Bond one way until Woods street (just south of Porter and the MAX line) where it will join up on the two-way Moody. You can see this depicted in page 6 of the bic/ped pdf posted above (the light blue line).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #250  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2009, 9:49 PM
mcbaby mcbaby is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 587
if the portland spirit insists on a taller mast and wind turbines perhaps they could invest in retractible ones that will lower as they approach the bridge.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #251  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2009, 6:03 PM
NJD's Avatar
NJD NJD is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland
Posts: 632
Let's see here... Moody grade and Streetcar tracks to the West, the OPRR track grade and new MLK viaduct to the East, and a federally required ADA compatible slope up and down between the two sides... so, the mast that the Spirit wants will cost everyone else tens of millions of dollars to build this bridge in order to deal with these restraints (not to mention other bridge designs could potentially raze other businesses and require the OPRR to reroute). Hmmm....

I believe the Spirit business owners, the only vocal opponent to the height, are looking for a handout (and they have a long standing beef with the City, Metro and Trimet from what I've read), but that's my opinion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #252  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2009, 12:21 PM
MightyAlweg MightyAlweg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 160
Let me get this straight....

A recreational dinner cruise company that runs a big boat up and down the river on rather frivolous pleasure cruises is so worried about Global Warming that they fear some unknown future year when their boat won't fit under the bridge in December when they are running themed novelty cruises for people to look at all the extra Christmas lights wasting electricity on buildings? Talk about a business model built on an extra-large carbon footprint, the Spirit of Portland has it all covered! (Although I'm sure they will tell you they recycle the booze bottles after each cruise, and are now using LED disco lights on the dance floor.)

Might it occur to these Spirit of Portland business owners that if they were really that concerned with Global Warming, they should probably stop running a business that offers a purely frivolous and rather decadent product to people dependent on a big gas guzzling boat, not to mention begin campaigning against the completely unnecessary addition of purely decorative lights to bridges and private buildings in the dead of winter?

It's really quite funny, although something tells me the Spirit of Portland folks haven't thought it through enough to get to the funny part.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #253  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2010, 11:14 PM
NJD's Avatar
NJD NJD is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland
Posts: 632
Milwaukie Light Rail releases design report
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
BY: Nathalie Weinstein DJC



A conceptual design report for the Portland-Milwaukie Light Rail Project was released Monday in advance of Thursday’s citizens’ advisory committee meeting.

The report gives details on design options for the light rail project’s stations and alignments, as well as the design of the Willamette River Bridge, which will take the light-rail across the river from Portland State University to the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry.

A 60 percent match from the Federal Transit Administration will be requested for the estimated $1.42 billion project. The remainder will be funded locally through lottery-backed bonds, bonds backed by the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program, the cities of Portland and Milwaukie, Clackamas County, TriMet and other sources.

The preliminary engineering phase of the project is expected to be complete in March and a Final Environmental Impact Statement will be completed and published by the FTA in May. If a grant agreement is struck with the FTA, construction would begin in 2011, with light rail service starting in September 2015.

A citizens advisory committee meeting on the project will be held Feb. 18 from 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at St. Philip Neri Parish, Carvlin Hall, 2408 S.E. 16th Ave., in Portland.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #254  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2010, 7:05 PM
Okstate's Avatar
Okstate Okstate is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SE PDX
Posts: 1,367
I wonder if Portland will ever get to the point where TriMet is constructing two lines simultaneously? Now that would be nice. However, I am certainly not complaining about their current speed. Since they are extending Lincoln eastward towards Naito, I wonder if one or two buildings will be demolished?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #255  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2010, 7:44 PM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Milwaukie, Oregon
Posts: 11,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okstate View Post
I wonder if Portland will ever get to the point where TriMet is constructing two lines simultaneously? Now that would be nice. However, I am certainly not complaining about their current speed. Since they are extending Lincoln eastward towards Naito, I wonder if one or two buildings will be demolished?
The closest I think we will ever see to two lines being constructed at the same time would be a light rail and a streetcar line being built during the same period...though who is to say, we wont ever get a huge dump truck of money that would allow us to build more than one line at a time.

This is why I like to elect senators that bring pork projects like this to Portland...why vote for someone who is going to turn down money for these projects?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #256  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2010, 11:27 PM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,520
Thursday, February 18, 2010, 3:38pm PST | Modified: Thursday, February 18, 2010, 7:31pm
City considers light-rail bridge options
Portland Business Journal

Portland leaders want property owners citywide to kick in for the Portland-Milwaukie light-rail line construction.

In identifying funding sources for the $1.4 billion line, Portland will apply $1.78 million collected from citywide transportation system development charges. The money had already been earmarked for the project, according to the city’s finance office.

All told, the city must contribute $30 million to the project. Some $10 million worth of tax-increment financing money will be generated through the North Macadam Urban Renewal Area, through which the new line will travel. Another $15 million would come from transportation system development charges levied against property owners within the North Macadam and the Portland State University areas. Some $3.22 million would come via parking revenue.

Portland Mayor Sam Adams, on a Twitter post, characterized the plan as spending $30 million in order to help attract the rest of the funding from state and federal sources. The council discussed the matter at its Thursday meeting.

Adams said the project could create 12,300 jobs. Work on the project is scheduled to begin in summer 2011.

Light-rail supporters believe the 7.3-mile line could launch billions worth of development in the North Macadam area, Southeast Portland, Milwaukie and north Clackamas County.

The Portland City Council is considering the measure as it decides whether to authorize an intergovernmental grant agreement with TriMet. The agreement would spell out the city’s financial commitment to the project.

http://portland.bizjournals.com/port...ub&t=printable
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #257  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2010, 3:03 PM
bvpcvm bvpcvm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Portland
Posts: 2,788
lots of new pdfs with fancy drawings and schematics, broken down by line section:

http://www.trimet.org/pm/planninganddesign/index.htm
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #258  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2010, 4:33 PM
Okstate's Avatar
Okstate Okstate is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SE PDX
Posts: 1,367
The downtown Milwaukee "possible" station looks great.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #259  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2010, 6:39 PM
NJD's Avatar
NJD NJD is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland
Posts: 632
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.

Side note: there was a great emphasis on new bike infrastructure that go along with this project, as well as queuing and design of where MAX, streetcar, bus, bike and pedestrians all meet at the new bridgeheads. 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...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #260  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2010, 9:37 PM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,520
Question...Is there any light rail systems with WiFi? How difficult would it be to get free WiFi on the max?
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot
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



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:03 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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