Portland Transit | TriMet/Mass Transit News - Page 62

der Reisender · #**1221** Posted **Mar 14, 2007, 1:09 AM**

http://apta.com/research/stats/ridership/

Yes, although the APTA's site says its only 3rd Quarter ridership stats, it is indeed the 4th Quarter. Some numbers:

MAX Weekday ridership: 100,400, up 2.87% on the year
Bus Weekday ridership: 205,300, down 1.35% on the year

Total Weekday ridership: 309,400, up .12% this year

So basically we are stagnant, and if I recall our bus ridership in particular has been in this holding pattern the last few years, despite population growth across the region. Whats the deal? What could be done to improve ridership on the bus or MAX?

I for one would like to see fewer bus stops along the lines. Living by the 8 in NE, it is well used, but I rarely ride it myself, instead taking the extra time to go to MAX, because it takes so damn long. Why do we have stops every two blocks? I wish TriMet would re-evaluate the bus stops on each line to increase speed and reliability, and direct amenities to improving the remaining stops. I'd rather walk an extra three blocks than sit on the bus an extra ten minutes

alexjon · #**1222** Posted **Mar 14, 2007, 1:43 AM**

We need to make tax incentives based off of transit

zilfondel · #**1223** Posted **Mar 14, 2007, 3:24 AM**

I read something on portlandtransport by someone who said the current Trimet system is setup for people who want to travel only a couple of miles by transit - it is NOT for people who actually need to get somewhere. Living close-in, I take the bus downtown, but bicycle or ride my scooter everywhere else in the immediate area. I simply do not travel to any of the suburbs, as it takes half the day.

We need a full-blown metro system at this point. MAX could be built to those kinds of standards... but they've been using it as a development tool so tourists can ogle at the pretty tracks and convince them to buy condos in downtown. Or they build the line where nobody lives or wants to travel to (greenfields in Hillsboro, Interstate MAX).

alexjon · #**1224** Posted **Mar 14, 2007, 3:27 AM**

I live beyond beaverton and work in far north portland and take the MAX both ways.

WonderlandPark · #**1225** Posted **Mar 14, 2007, 4:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexjon

I live beyond beaverton and work in far north portland and take the MAX both ways.

You of all people should be for putting the sucker underground. Didn't figure you for living way out in Hillsboro or something.

pdxman · #**1226** Posted **Mar 14, 2007, 4:55 AM**

I definitely agree with your statement zilf...I love the idea of the MAX, but i think it is very ineffective in its current form. Right now its just a bigger more expensive streetcar. They need to condense many of their stops and MUST subway the max through DT in order for it to be more of a bonafide commuter tool. Trimet needs to get it together--tho they have their TIP it just doesn't seem like they're planning the MAX system very well, like they're just piecing it together. Not too mention the bus system is starting to go south. Idk i'm just not liking where trimet is heading...

designpdx · #**1227** Posted **Mar 14, 2007, 8:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by der Reisender

http://apta.com/research/stats/ridership/

Yes, although the APTA's site says its only 3rd Quarter ridership stats, it is indeed the 4th Quarter. Some numbers:

MAX Weekday ridership: 100,400, up 2.87% on the year
Bus Weekday ridership: 205,300, down 1.35% on the year

Total Weekday ridership: 309,400, up .12% this year

So basically we are stagnant, and if I recall our bus ridership in particular has been in this holding pattern the last few years, despite population growth across the region. Whats the deal? What could be done to improve ridership on the bus or MAX?

I for one would like to see fewer bus stops along the lines. Living by the 8 in NE, it is well used, but I rarely ride it myself, instead taking the extra time to go to MAX, because it takes so damn long. Why do we have stops every two blocks? I wish TriMet would re-evaluate the bus stops on each line to increase speed and reliability, and direct amenities to improving the remaining stops. I'd rather walk an extra three blocks than sit on the bus an extra ten minutes

I was just thinking about this today on my bus ride downtown. Two ideas are more Express bus service on existing lines and reintroduction of the long articulated buses (more seating might attract more riders). Just a few thoughts.

Room 606 · #**1228** Posted **Mar 14, 2007, 11:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdxman

Not too mention the bus system is starting to go south.

What do you mean by that?

Keep in mind that these numbers are after considerable fare increases. TriMet could have made more cuts to service and seen even larger declines in ridership, but instead went with fare increases. You can definitely argue that one either way, but I think it's important to view these numbers in this context.

pdxman · #**1229** Posted **Mar 15, 2007, 1:09 AM**

I wasn't talking about the numbers so much as i was the quality of the buses themselves. I go to cities like seattle, sacramento, even salem! and the buses are clean, quiet and much more enviromentally friendly than trimets. Thats what i meant.

alexjon · #**1230** Posted **Mar 15, 2007, 1:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WonderlandPark

You of all people should be for putting the sucker underground. Didn't figure you for living way out in Hillsboro or something.

Well, it's not that long a trip, tbh... the only trouble comes in the span between PGE park and Washington Park

And yeah, I'm all for putting it underground

MarkDaMan · #**1231** Posted **Mar 15, 2007, 2:50 PM**

could the bus ridership numbers be going down because bike transportation numbers are increasing, quite dramatically actually? If I didn't have a Max line and had to rely on buses, I'd probably ride my bike instead too, for many reasons.

Snowden352 · #**1232** Posted **Mar 15, 2007, 4:06 PM**

Just thought I'd drop my thoughts in the debate...

Honestly, I think the rail (of whatever kind) needs to be dramatically retooled. I think the region, if it's serious about alternate transportation, it needs to focus less on getting as many lines as possible into downtown (which I think has proven to have peaked) and start getting rapid transit into the other major employment centers, like the north-east industrial parks, the northwest industrial zone, kruse way, the major tech campuses in Washington County, etc. Without such options, people will have to rely on their cars as the only reasonable means to get from point A to point B.

Until tri-met and the region focuses on actually offering rapid transit as an efficient means of getting around, rapid transit will be what the critics call it, a "toy train".
(Just a note, I disagree with it being called that)

Snowden352 · #**1233** Posted **Mar 15, 2007, 4:13 PM**

(warning: unashamed self-congratulation)
You know what? I think I'm so right, I'm gonna toss out my ideas

I think the region is neglecting the best transit line we have available: Commuter rail! I mean we have how many thousands of miles of tracks ALREADY laid out and how often do trains actually run on those tracks?!? Not very bloody often! If we could reach with a larger agreement we could set up a comprehensive, region-wide and (most importantly) cheap method of rapid transit! I mean, rather than spending nearly billions to establish new lines, right of way, and new construction, we could just be pulling the washington county commuter line across the entire region; hell, we could expand the network with some ready-at-hand private funds (the rail lines, themselves) and public funds. What's more, the lines already connect to many, if not most of the major employment centers. The lines even run near many major neighborhoods, and wouldn't need to interfere with the local street networks!
I mean, am I nuts? Does this seem like a good idea? Tell me!!!!

Room 606 · #**1234** Posted **Mar 15, 2007, 5:17 PM**

I used to agree with you Snowden. But a fully developed system of commuter rail just isn't all that compatible with our region. Commuter rail is generally best for distances greater than 10 miles. Building commuter rail lines that extend 15, 20, and 30+ miles from downtown gets you well into areas beyond the urban growth boundary. This is exactly where we don't want easy commuter access to employment.

I do agree that specific commuter rail lines makes sense - namely Portland-McMinville, Portland-Wilsonville and Portland-Salem. But if we're serious about focusing much of our growth in already built up areas, we need to be very careful about opening places like rural Yamhill or Clackamas county up to easy commuting, even if it is by rail.

Of course the dynamic shifts if the floodgates to development in these areas is opened by the likes of Measure 37. But if we're serious about protecting farmland and open space and concentrating population in already developed areas, a comprehensive "rapid" regional commuter rail system probably isn't the answer.

I am curious to know what other people think about this.

zilfondel · #**1235** Posted **Mar 15, 2007, 5:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowden352

(warning: unashamed self-congratulation)
You know what? I think I'm so right, I'm gonna toss out my ideas

I think the region is neglecting the best transit line we have available: Commuter rail! I mean we have how many thousands of miles of tracks ALREADY laid out and how often do trains actually run on those tracks?!? Not very bloody often! If we could reach with a larger agreement we could set up a comprehensive, region-wide and (most importantly) cheap method of rapid transit! I mean, rather than spending nearly billions to establish new lines, right of way, and new construction, we could just be pulling the washington county commuter line across the entire region; hell, we could expand the network with some ready-at-hand private funds (the rail lines, themselves) and public funds. What's more, the lines already connect to many, if not most of the major employment centers. The lines even run near many major neighborhoods, and wouldn't need to interfere with the local street networks!
I mean, am I nuts? Does this seem like a good idea? Tell me!!!!

I've been toying with the idea of creating a nice google map of all the heavy rail tracks in the Metro area to see how close theyget to these main 'centers' of employment and regional areas (ie, Gateway, 'downtown' Beaverton, etc). I suspect it wouldn't need a lot of additions to create a German-style S-Bahn system, except perhaps another tunnel to downtown thru the West Hills. Yea, I know, but if you want commuter rail...

One of the biggest annoyances is the lack of pedestrian places to act as destinations. Like who really wants to go to Beaverton? There isn't even any place to go to, for christsakes!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Room 606

I do agree that specific commuter rail lines makes sense - namely Portland-McMinville, Portland-Wilsonville and Portland-Salem. But if we're serious about focusing much of our growth in already built up areas, we need to be very careful about opening places like rural Yamhill or Clackamas county up to easy commuting, even if it is by rail.

Actually, commuer rail and trains in general encourage far more compact growth - although in this day and age that needs to be enforced by land-use laws, restrictions and zoning. But people aren't going to drive an hour to get to a park and ride lot, wait for the train, ride it another hour downtown, then walk another 10-30 minutes to their destination. The oft-cited 'transit oriented development' model, however, works quite well for rail commuting - housing located probably within a couple miles of the station is ideally situated and will probably attract a lot of riders, as long as there are actual destinations at the other end of the line (would help if it connects to the MAX system, too).

Historically, however, rail never encouraged sprawl. Small, densely packed suburbs, yes; sprawl, no.

Room 606 · #**1236** Posted **Mar 15, 2007, 6:58 PM**

(first, Z, could you edit your post to fix the quote box? I wouldn't want to be given credit for your words

)

I agree that rail can and does in some cases create less sprawling suburbs than might otherwise be built. My point about commuter rail, however, was to ask whether we want any sort of suburbs - even the densest and best designed -extending 20 and 30 miles out into currently rural/small town parts of the region. Or are we better off focusing on a more extensive rail network, albeit a slower one, that serves the areas we want to focus growth? If it's the latter we're after, then commuter rail, for the reasons mentioned in my last post, only makes sense on a few key routes between existing population centers.

Rail helped Los Angeles to develop the way it did in the early part of the century. As a result, it has suburban density that many in Portland would envy. The other side of that coin, of course, is that the extensive rail network helped these "streetcar suburbs" extend for about 50 miles from central LA into what had been farm land.

Obviously Los Angeles circa 1915 and Portland today are two very different animals. But I think this example does show the danger of believing that suburban development is positive just because it's linked to rail.

pdxman · #**1237** Posted **Mar 15, 2007, 11:42 PM**

ODOT to hold open house on southeast Portland viaduct project

Posted by The Oregonian March 15, 2007 16:26PM

The Oregon Department of Transportation has scheduled an open house next week to explain a project to replace the Southeast Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard and Grand Avenue viaducts on Oregon 99E in Southeast Portland.

ODOT staff and officials from the contractor, Max J. Kuney Construction of Spokane, will discuss project details and traffic impacts at the open house, from 4 to 7 p.m. Tuesday at the OMSI Auditorium, 1945 S.E. Water Ave.

The $64 million project is scheduled for completion in fall 2010.

The first phase of the project, which began in March 2006 and is now almost done, focused on relocating utilities and building a new southbound Oregon 99E exit and entrance ramps near the Ross Island Bridge.

Phase two will replace the existing viaducts. Due to the complex nature of the work, travel lanes will be shifted many times during the project, said Shawn Uhlman, ODOT spokesman.

Two travel lanes will be maintained in each direction most of the time. But the work will require temporary closures of one or more lanes on some nights and weekends, Uhlman said.

The viaducts carry 60,000 vehicles per day with traffic peaks exceeding 6,000 vehicles per hour.

- James Mayer; jimmayer@news.oregonian.com

WonderlandPark · #**1238** Posted **Mar 15, 2007, 11:44 PM**

Crap, I better get down there and do some photography before they bring the viaducts down.

zilfondel · #**1239** Posted **Mar 16, 2007, 1:26 AM**

^^^ Better hurry, as there is a ton of machinery already down there. Looks like they are (surprise!) starting with the sewer work. They've also rebuilt a bunch of RR track and some new streets around OMSI already.

Drmyeyes · #**1240** Posted **Mar 16, 2007, 5:23 AM**

Room 606, Opening up rural counties to better commuting via rail might not be such a bad idea in regards to population increase in these counties if the means by which such a population was housed and served in these areas were carefully thought through.

If portions of land and resources being conserved through zoning and land use laws were carefully and efficiently used for rural/ urban commute communities, greater numbers of people might reasonably be able to live out in these areas, yet minimizing adverse effects of their presence there.

The entire area around 185th in Hillsboro (I think that's Hillsboro's territory), north to Bethany, West Union, is a great example of what not to do. Not so many years ago, the entire area was quite rural. Most of the buildings allowed to be constructed to serve this large, new community were low level. There's probably nothing there over 4 stories tall. It does cost more to build higher, but if the need for housing and the desire to live in or close to a rural environment really exists, it seems as though something like this might be done.