HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #221  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2009, 1:23 AM
NJD's Avatar
NJD NJD is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland
Posts: 620
^ 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
     
     
  #222  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2009, 9:49 PM
mcbaby mcbaby is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 584
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
     
     
  #223  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2009, 6:03 PM
NJD's Avatar
NJD NJD is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland
Posts: 620
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
     
     
  #224  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2009, 12:21 PM
MightyAlweg MightyAlweg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 149
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
     
     
  #225  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2010, 11:14 PM
NJD's Avatar
NJD NJD is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland
Posts: 620
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
     
     
  #226  
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: 1,371
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
     
     
  #227  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2010, 7:44 PM
urbanlife's Avatar
urbanlife urbanlife is offline
A before E
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 9,237
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?
__________________
urbanlife flickr images
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #228  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2010, 11:27 PM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Portland Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 6,262
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
     
     
  #229  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2010, 3:03 PM
bvpcvm bvpcvm is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Portland
Posts: 2,494
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
     
     
  #230  
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: 1,371
The downtown Milwaukee "possible" station looks great.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #231  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2010, 6:39 PM
NJD's Avatar
NJD NJD is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland
Posts: 620
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
     
     
  #232  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2010, 9:37 PM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Portland Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 6,262
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
     
     
  #233  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2010, 10:20 PM
Eco_jt's Avatar
Eco_jt Eco_jt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Portland
Posts: 107
The Bart system in the SF Bay Area is installing wi-fi but they are heavy rail/elevated rail/subway

here's the link:
http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/20...s20090202.aspx
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #234  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2010, 11:30 PM
JordanL JordanL is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eco_jt View Post
The Bart system in the SF Bay Area is installing wi-fi but they are heavy rail/elevated rail/subway

here's the link:
http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/20...s20090202.aspx
There's no real reason that a lightrail system couldn't have wifi, it would just have more interference which would necessitate more wifi routers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #235  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2010, 1:32 AM
bvpcvm bvpcvm is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Portland
Posts: 2,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJD View Post
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.
I would imagine that to get up to 90% they'd have to have blueprints for pretty much everything with just about every bolt planned out.

I'm glad to see all this info online; up 'til now there's been a real dearth of info when they're planning new lines. With the green line they put up maybe 6 or 7 renderings of stations and that video and that was about it; about the yellow and red lines there was even less.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #236  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2010, 4:07 AM
rsbear's Avatar
rsbear rsbear is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 648
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJD View Post
Now I know why light rail costs Trimet more to produce than anywhere else in the country
Where did you get that "statistic"?
__________________
Portland: 27 years
Boston: 3 years
Los Angeles: 21 years (and counting)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #237  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2010, 7:47 AM
philopdx philopdx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,274
I'd love cell service on trains, then I could talk/surf/etc in the tunnel. Europe is CRAZY like that - when I was in Poland in 2007 and the had cell service in a SALT MINE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wieliczka_Salt_Mine
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #238  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2010, 8:18 PM
RED_PDXer RED_PDXer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 464
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJD View Post
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...
Is it really a "planned" widening, or are they reserving the ability to widen at some future year? I would associate a "planned" project as one with a timeline for implementation and identified in the Regional Transportation Plan as a project slated for funding. I don't think widening 99E is slated for regional funding or has a timeframe.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #239  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2010, 2:27 AM
NJD's Avatar
NJD NJD is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland
Posts: 620
Quote:
Where did you get that "statistic"?
I don't remember now, but there was some criticism a while back about how Portland's light rail construction costs have ballooned well past any sort of inflation or material cost increases... think about the $214 million for 15 miles in 1986 versus $350 million for 6 miles in 2004 or $575 for 8 miles in 2009: which translates into a 400-475% cost increase in around 20 years (the consumer price index increased only 47.5% from 1986-2004 and 68% from 1986-2009, equates to light rail construction jumping 6-8 times the inflation rate). I wish I could find the original report which stated that overall transit construction costs rose 3-4 times higher than other infrastructure construction costs during the same time span.

Quote:
Is it really a "planned" widening, or are they reserving the ability to widen at some future year?
Yes and yes... it looks like ODOT wanted to widen McLoughlin years ago but the project got shelved for whatever reason (I didn't ask), so currently it is a reserved alignment for a future time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #240  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2010, 6:04 AM
bvpcvm bvpcvm is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Portland
Posts: 2,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJD View Post
I don't remember now, but there was some criticism a while back about how Portland's light rail construction costs have ballooned well past any sort of inflation or material cost increases... think about the $214 million for 15 miles in 1986 versus $350 million for 6 miles in 2004 or $575 for 8 miles in 2009: which translates into a 400-475% cost increase in around 20 years (the consumer price index increased only 47.5% from 1986-2004 and 68% from 1986-2009, equates to light rail construction jumping 6-8 times the inflation rate). I wish I could find the original report which stated that overall transit construction costs rose 3-4 times higher than other infrastructure construction costs during the same time span.
cpi is one thing, but haven't construction costs in general ballooned in the last decade? it would be interesting to compare the cost of office buildings built at the same time. also, i imagine environmental regulations have only gotten tighter and made most any infrastructure project more expensive - i doubt we had to give a thought to salmon, for example, when we built the fremont bridge. my point is that it's probably not lrt construction costs per se which have gone up, instead, the costs of all large infrastructure costs have gone up. more than cpi.
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 > SSP: Local Portland > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:46 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.