Destroy the Bus System? Re: Portland's Anti-Transit Cloud Cuckoos

[b***@despammed.com]

12. Finally, Tri-Met is busily studying installation of MAX light
rail tracks on the downtown bus mall originally opened in 1977.
This serves two main purposes: (1) allows Tri-Met to double MAX
capacity--which will be reached once the Interstate Avenue line opens;
and (2) removes a significant number of buses from downtown Portland,
reducing the blight caused by the operation of hundreds of diesel
buses per hour on 5th and 6th Streets. The merchants will love MAX
trains compared to buses, beleive me.

"Hundreds of buses per hour"? Those are not going to be replaced by
running a single light rail train through downtown once every 15 minutes.
Besides, those buses serve many areas of Portland that will never see MAX
under the current plans.

[cardboard]

Post by b***@despammed.com

12. Finally, Tri-Met is busily studying installation of MAX light
rail tracks on the downtown bus mall originally opened in 1977.
This serves two main purposes: (1) allows Tri-Met to double MAX
capacity--which will be reached once the Interstate Avenue line opens;
and (2) removes a significant number of buses from downtown Portland,
reducing the blight caused by the operation of hundreds of diesel
buses per hour on 5th and 6th Streets. The merchants will love MAX
trains compared to buses, beleive me.

"Hundreds of buses per hour"? Those are not going to be replaced by
running a single light rail train through downtown once every 15 minutes.
Besides, those buses serve many areas of Portland that will never see MAX
under the current plans.

Oh they will indeed see MAX, they'll see it in their taxes.

Trimet (especially MAX) seem to think a one hour commute for a person
living 15 miles out of downdown is acceptable.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by cardboard
Oh they will indeed see MAX, they'll see it in their taxes.

IOW, you have absolutely no idea how transit is funded in Portland.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Payroll and property taxes are one of the biggest reasons why
mass transit agencies don't give a crap about quality of service.
They have zero incentive.

IOW, you've not ridden transit in Portland recently.

[Jason McHuff]

Post by Baxter

Post by cardboard
Oh they will indeed see MAX, they'll see it in their taxes.

IOW, you have absolutely no idea how transit is funded in Portland.

Payroll taxes. The 95% that don't ride subsidize the 5% that do.
Payroll and property taxes are one of the biggest reasons why
mass transit agencies don't give a crap about quality of service.
They have zero incentive.

Umm, 75% of their riders have the $$$ to drive. Also, a lot more than
5% ride to Downtown, where the auto is at least somewhat correctly
priced. Think about free parking, no pollution tax, ...

As for "quality of service" MAX certianly scores high at that. Then
there's Frequent Service bus lines (
http://www.trimet.org/guide/frequentservice.htm )...

--Jason McHuff, Salem, OR

[Cabalmaster]

What'd I tell you? See the last paragraph especially, below.
Who's anti-transit?

It seems that one John Charles of an outfit called the "Cascade Policy
Institute" in Portland, Oregon, is going to give a talk to the rubes
of Clark County, Washington, at a Rotary luncheon on how Portland's
MAX light rail system "doesn't work."

Aug 7 - John A. Charles speaks about "Why Portland's Light Rail
System Doesn't Work" at a Greater Clark County Rotary luncheon
in Vancouver, WA.

Well, Mr. Charles, if MAX is your definition of "failure" I'll take
it over your definition of "success" any time, based on the 12
talking points below.

<snip>

10. Due to a shortage of rolling stock, Tri-Met has been shuffling
MAX schedules to accomodate current overcrowding between Beaverton,
downtown, and the Gateway Transit Center.
11. The West Hills MAX line to Beaverton and Hillsboro which opened
in 1998, now carries 29,000 daily passengers, more than the 25,000
prediction for 2005. Patronage would significantly higher except
Tri-Met is unable to meet demand due to a shortage of rolling stock.
12. Finally, Tri-Met is busily studying installation of MAX light
rail tracks on the downtown bus mall originally opened in 1977.
This serves two main purposes: (1) allows Tri-Met to double MAX
capacity--which will be reached once the Interstate Avenue line opens;
and (2) removes a significant number of buses from downtown Portland,
reducing the blight caused by the operation of hundreds of diesel
buses per hour on 5th and 6th Streets. The merchants will love MAX
trains compared to buses, beleive me.

Even with buses diverted out of downtown Portland due to new MAX
routes, I am certain several dozen buses per hour will still travel
down the mall, from neighborhoods without direct MAX access. If you
had paid attention to the mall redesign options presented by Tri-Met,
you'll notice that provisions for buses are still manifest, probably
for 90-100 buses per hour rather than the historic maximum of 150-180
per hour.

As for merchants and their disdain for buses, it is apparent to anyone
walking up or down 5th and 6th that those streets have had a very high
retail vacancy rate for many years. I prefer to think that this is due
to the negative environmental impacts of diesel buses, rather than the
demographics of bus riders. Do YOU know the differences in
demographics between MAX and bus riders? I'm sure less of gulf than,
say, in Chicago (where removing the bus transit mall only status of
State Street in the Loop revived the retail sector there).

Mike Setty

[wrob]

Post by Cabalmaster
Even with buses diverted out of downtown Portland due to new MAX
routes, I am certain several dozen buses per hour will still travel
down the mall, from neighborhoods without direct MAX access.

And which neighborhoods would that be, once you have MAX running in
the median of three freeways and alongside another? Here in the
east coast, freeway-running light rail is considered an extremely
backward notion, as it is in Seattle and LA.

There are NO "neighborhoods" within walking distance of the I-205,
none worth the name along the Banfield or Sunset,
and the Interstate Ave. and Westside "neighborhoods" are not transit
friendly. You, sir, do not know what it means for a neighborhood (not
just an isolated development near the train station) to have transit access.

Post by Cabalmaster
If you
had paid attention to the mall redesign options presented by Tri-Met,
you'll notice that provisions for buses are still manifest, probably
for 90-100 buses per hour rather than the historic maximum of 150-180
per hour.

In other words, destroy the bus system by halving the number of routes
that do not require transfers.

Post by Cabalmaster
As for merchants and their disdain for buses, it is apparent to anyone
walking up or down 5th and 6th that those streets have had a very high
retail vacancy rate for many years. I prefer to think that this is due
to the negative environmental impacts of diesel buses, rather than the
demographics of bus riders. Do YOU know the differences in
demographics between MAX and bus riders? I'm sure less of gulf than,
say, in Chicago (where removing the bus transit mall only status of
State Street in the Loop revived the retail sector there).

I'm glad to see SOMEONE in the world of LRT has the balls to say what they
really think -- that one of the best bus systems has served its purpose and
should be scrapped. If you had no preconceptions about bus ridership you'd
listen to the riders, who do not want forced transfers and a scrapped bus
mall with half as many buses in return for more FREEWAY RAIL and ONE
neighborhood served (Milwaukie).

But since you assume theeir poor (If they weren't poor they wouldn't use
the system for COMMUTING would they? -- I mean, it's for pleasure riding,
for heavens' sake!)

If MAX was for commuting they'd have made it rapid rail, or at least a
streetcar subway/el like every other city in the US that has a decent system.

Meanwhile, 80-90% of actual commuters still take the bus, because it's an
ADWARD-WINNING SYSTEM and you want to halve that because you added rail to
ONE neighborhhod in ONE of the five quadrants of the city (SE). Right now
MAX is a three-leg system of trolleys with an airport spur. That's pretty
pathetic.

In any case, this'll never happen because once you get to a
neighborhood-by-neighborhood process of deciding which buses
to be scrapped, reality and massive opposition will set in.

I predict the turn lanes will be preserved (which Michael Setty and Baxter
so love -- they're obsessesd with protecting the interests of ensuring that
the chain retailers on the bus mall are "vibrant", far more important than
bus riders OWN interests apparently. I mean, why SHOULD I as a cash-strapped
bus patron be expected to patronize Starbucks or Radio Shak just cause I'm on
the bus mall? To keep the owners "vibrant"?)

I predict the buses will remain, which means frequency of Interstate MAX
cannot increase, but there'll still be enough traffic problems to screw up
the bus system ridership. LRT fanatics will then join forces with Republicans
to gut bus funding on the basis of some budgetary crisis, thereby freeing up
enough space for toy trains packed with people no longer served by the
Interstate Ave. bus, which, I assume only runs every 15 mins at rush hour?

Did I mention overall ridership will decline since, by decreasing bus service
wherever MAX goes, you make it a zero sum game and fill up the tiny trains
with former bus riders, making MAX look like a "success" and bus a "failure"?

If MAX is all about saving money that would otherwise be poured into an
"inefficient" award-winning bus system, it seems to me it's really about
DISINVESTMENT in a more extensive system, replacing it with something
"simpler" and "more efficient". If all the trains didn't follow freeway
corridors, it might be simpler, but it would not leave room for existing
bus riders and additional "choice" riders on the trains, and you can't
have it both ways.

-BER

[wrob]

Post by wrob
And which neighborhoods would that be, once you have MAX running in
the median of three freeways and alongside another?

Your facts are completely wrong on this. Why should we listen to anything
else you have to say?
(I-205 is the only freeway in the Portland area where LRT does or
can run in the freeway median.)

That doesn't mean it SHOULD. Q.E.D.

-Brian R.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh yeah, and I failed to notice your pedantic distinction between
freeway-SIDE running on most of the existing "system" and freeway
median running on I-205. There is no difference for the pedestrian
(and anyone looking for a MAX destination along those routes will
invariabl wind up as a pedestrian in a sea of cars).

Try riding MAX sometime - you'd find that many stations on the part parallel
to the freeway are NOT surrounded by 'a sea of cars'.

Running the line down the median of Interstate Ave. is only
marginally better, since in the name of clearing up traffic
on I-5 specifically (a crackpot inappropriate goal for light rail)
it never once leaves the semi-industrial stretches along I-5
to go into the neighborhoods of North Portland. BTW, now that
you've gotten all the cars off I-5, care to explain where the
bus riders will go from the parallel routes with more frequent
intervals, the ones that all got cut back?

Again you have your facts wrong - total bus service in North Portland will
be increased, not cut back. Nor was InterstateMAX built to 'clear up
traffic on I-5'. On that issue you are not only wrong, you have nothing to
ever even suggest a connection. InterstateMAX was built for two reasons:
to alleviate -transportation- problems in North Portland (I-5 does not serve
North Portland), and for economic development in North Portland. It was
built to alleviate some of the negative impacts of the I-5 corridore on
North Portland.

[wrob]

Post by Baxter

Oh yeah, and I failed to notice your pedantic distinction between
freeway-SIDE running on most of the existing "system" and freeway
median running on I-205. There is no difference for the pedestrian
(and anyone looking for a MAX destination along those routes will
invariabl wind up as a pedestrian in a sea of cars).

Try riding MAX sometime - you'd find that many stations on the part parallel
to the freeway are NOT surrounded by 'a sea of cars'.

I'm referring to traffic. Presumably you are referring to the fact
that buses and foot traffic is the only way to access these stations,
with very poor north-south bus service, which would explain their
relatively low ridership compared to, say, a DC Metro station.

Post by Baxter

Running the line down the median of Interstate Ave. is only
marginally better, since in the name of clearing up traffic
on I-5 specifically (a crackpot inappropriate goal for light rail)
it never once leaves the semi-industrial stretches along I-5
to go into the neighborhoods of North Portland. BTW, now that
you've gotten all the cars off I-5, care to explain where the
bus riders will go from the parallel routes with more frequent
intervals, the ones that all got cut back?

Again you have your facts wrong - total bus service in North Portland will
be increased, not cut back. Nor was InterstateMAX built to 'clear up
traffic on I-5'. On that issue you are not only wrong, you have nothing to
to alleviate -transportation- problems in North Portland (I-5 does not serve
North Portland), and for economic development in North Portland. It was
built to alleviate some of the negative impacts of the I-5 corridore on
North Portland.

But it was sold to politicians on the basis of helping traffic on I-5.
That said, bunching development as close as possible to a phsychological
or geographical "border" slicing up a community is an appropriate goal,
cf. Jane Jacobs, but it shouldn't be the overwhelming determinant of the
routing. The line could have turned west to serve North Portland proper.
Interstate is the only MAX line I have any real hope for, development-wise.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 18:30:52 -0700, "Baxter"
I expect there will be many folks from Clark County that presently
drive into Portland will switch to parking at Delta Park and try MAX.
Some of those will stick with it and some will decide it's absurd to
sit in a crawling LRT car and switch back to driving.
Parking availibility at their destination will be a significant factor
in their decision. If they save good bucks by not having to park at
their destination, they may decide it's worth it. If parking is free,
why would they drive across the bridge, transfer to MAX and crawl into
town?

Actually, InterstateMAX will be only 3 minutes slower than an auto on
Interstate Ave to Pioneer Square - then the auto driver would have to find a
parking space. Some savings. I-5 would be faster if it weren't for the
congestion at peak - which is when most Clark County commuters would be
wanting to use it. Bottom line is that your claims about "a crawling LRT"
are not founded in fact, but are instead anti-transit propaganda.

[Hank Fung]

Post by Baxter

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 18:30:52 -0700, "Baxter"
I expect there will be many folks from Clark County that presently
drive into Portland will switch to parking at Delta Park and try MAX.
Some of those will stick with it and some will decide it's absurd to
sit in a crawling LRT car and switch back to driving.
Parking availibility at their destination will be a significant factor
in their decision. If they save good bucks by not having to park at
their destination, they may decide it's worth it. If parking is free,
why would they drive across the bridge, transfer to MAX and crawl into
town?

Actually, InterstateMAX will be only 3 minutes slower than an auto on
Interstate Ave to Pioneer Square - then the auto driver would have to find a
parking space. Some savings. I-5 would be faster if it weren't for the
congestion at peak - which is when most Clark County commuters would be
wanting to use it. Bottom line is that your claims about "a crawling LRT"
are not founded in fact, but are instead anti-transit propaganda.

How quickly we forget, Baxter, or was that John?

"Let's see:
MAX Expo Center to PCS: 25 minutes.
105, Vancouver Transit Center to 6th and Salmon: 16 minutes (in the HEIGHT
of rush hour, http://www.c-tran.com/105Wk.html)

Already, MAX loses.

(And, by personal experience, many of the Vancouver people that take the 5
on weekends are going to Portland. On the last bus on weekends to make the
final timed transfer at the 7th St. TC, a good half got on at Rose Quarter
or before and stayed on to downtown Vancouver. Too bad C-Tran cut the 105
on weekends. Expect a riot if they cut the 105 on weekdays.)"

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9jqegc%241b5k%241%40agate.berkeley.edu

and this:

"I'm taking this from the Tri-Met web site.
http://www.tri-met.org/interstatemax/

"Travel time
-25-minutes from Expo Center to Pioneer Square (25% faster than line #5
bus). Trains will run every 10 minutes during peak commute hours, every 15
minutes midday and evenings."

And, by the way, the Interstate bus runs a tiny bit more than every
10 minutes during peaks right now. It's not much, with a few trips
spaced at 5-8 minute intervals, but it is more than IMAX.

Also, IMAX may be 25% faster during peak hours (using Jantzen Beach Center
and 6th/Salmon to be equal to Expo Center and PCS, which, of course, it
isn't, as those points are further). 39 minutes one way from the
above endpoints on the 5, vs. 25 minutes on IMAX.

But MAX fails at other times to be even faster than the bus! If MAX
makes fewer stops, it logically should be ALWAYS faster than the bus.
But, the bus is faster than MAX after 10:30 pm on weekdays, after
6:35 pm on Saturday, and 9:30 pm on Sunday, according to the
5-Interstate schedule I am holding now dated September 3, 2000.
That's the CURRENT all stops bus, to be clear. Remember than Interstate
MAX will delete over half the bus stops currently served by Tri-Met,
since the 5-Interstate will be eliminated."

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9jssu9%24smt%241%40agate.berkeley.edu

Metropolitan Area "Express" speed update right now:

25 minutes between Pioneer Courthouse Square and Expo Center
Current C-Tran 105 bus: 27 minutes between 6th/Salmon and 7th/Main,
Vancouver (about 1 1/2 miles north of the Expo Center)
Current Line 5 bus: 42 minutes, 6th/Salmon to Jantzen Beach (about 1 mile
north of Expo Park terminus) during peak hours (4:12 pm trip)
24 minutes at 12:06 am (yes, MAX is slower than the bus sometimes)

Estimated trip time between Portland and Vancouver if MAX were to be
eliminated:
25 minute MAX trip to Delta Park
6.5 minute wait for Tri-Met 6 to Vancouver, which is not synchronized with
MAX (assumes 13 minute headways during peak)
10 minutes from Delta Park-Vancouver 7th Street Transit Center
------
Total time: 42 minutes

And heaven help you if you have to transfer to another bus at 7th Street.

Current time on C-Tran 105: 27 minutes during rush
Current time on Tri-Met: 39 minutes during midday (50 minutes during rush)

Based on my experiences, about half the bus load from Vancouver continues
all the way at least to Rose Quarter TC. These passengers will now suffer
longer trip times all in the name of urban redevelopment. Gee, thanks,
Tri-Met.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Hank Fung

Post by Baxter

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 18:30:52 -0700, "Baxter"
I expect there will be many folks from Clark County that presently
drive into Portland will switch to parking at Delta Park and try MAX.
Some of those will stick with it and some will decide it's absurd to
sit in a crawling LRT car and switch back to driving.
Parking availibility at their destination will be a significant factor
in their decision. If they save good bucks by not having to park at
their destination, they may decide it's worth it. If parking is free,
why would they drive across the bridge, transfer to MAX and crawl into
town?

Actually, InterstateMAX will be only 3 minutes slower than an auto on
Interstate Ave to Pioneer Square - then the auto driver would have to find a
parking space. Some savings. I-5 would be faster if it weren't for the
congestion at peak - which is when most Clark County commuters would be
wanting to use it. Bottom line is that your claims about "a crawling LRT"
are not founded in fact, but are instead anti-transit propaganda.

How quickly we forget, Baxter, or was that John?
MAX Expo Center to PCS: 25 minutes.
105, Vancouver Transit Center to 6th and Salmon: 16 minutes (in the HEIGHT
of rush hour, http://www.c-tran.com/105Wk.html)

Well, they say it - but have you ever tried to drive it? I have, and and
those timings look entirely implausible.

Post by Hank Fung
Already, MAX loses.

No, the people of North Portland gain. Your C-Tran 105 is and express that
does not serve North Portland.

Should MAX serve Vancouver? The inter-state task force that looked at the
WHOLE transportation picture in the area said yes. Assuming that the C-Tran
schedule is correct and you can make the trip in 16 minutes today, does not
mean you will be able to make that same trip in 16 minutes ten years from
now.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

B>> How quickly we forget, Baxter, or was that John?

Post by Baxter

Post by Hank Fung
MAX Expo Center to PCS: 25 minutes.
105, Vancouver Transit Center to 6th and Salmon: 16 minutes (in the HEIGHT
of rush hour, http://www.c-tran.com/105Wk.html)

Well, they say it - but have you ever tried to drive it? I have, and and
those timings look entirely implausible.

I've ridden it and the timing seems about right. Remember that the main
bottleneck southbound is the narrows at Delta Park,

That's the worst of it, but not all of it.

and the resulting
backup which stretches north into Clark County. Northbound, the bottleneck
is bypassed by the carpool lane.

Northbound typically backs up over the Freemont Bridge. The HOV lane helps,
but is no cure. It often takes 20 minutes to get from the Rose Quarter to
Portland Blvd (yet the CTran schedule claims that as the time from downtown
Portland to downtown Vancouver.

Post by Baxter

Post by Hank Fung

Post by Hank Fung
Already, MAX loses.

No, the people of North Portland gain. Your C-Tran 105 is and express that
does not serve North Portland.

While the people of Vancouver lose by adding yet another transfer and wait
to get into Portland.

North Portland is taxing itself to build InterstateMAX. Apparently
Vancouver wants it for free.

Post by Baxter
Should MAX serve Vancouver? The inter-state task force that looked at the
WHOLE transportation picture in the area said yes. Assuming that the C-Tran
schedule is correct and you can make the trip in 16 minutes today, does not
mean you will be able to make that same trip in 16 minutes ten years from
now.

But you could run an express bus down that corridor using the HOV lanes.
There is enough Vancouver-Portland traffic to support a dedicated express
link, five days a week if not more.

Do you think the task force didn't consider such a plan? They considered a
whole bunch of plans and, after weighing all the pros and cons, found that
extending MAX was the best alternative.

[Hank Fung]

Post by Baxter

While the people of Vancouver lose by adding yet another transfer and wait
to get into Portland.

North Portland is taxing itself to build InterstateMAX. Apparently
Vancouver wants it for free.

So let's punish Vancouver residents by making them transfer to a bus
and ride it for maybe 10 minutes just to get to Portland. Yeah, that'll
show them who's boss.

If the plan to extend Line 6 as being proposed is pushed forward, this
means that transfers between IMAX and the Vancouver shuttle will not
be coordinated. I certainly wouldn't wait 15 or more minutes at a
deserted transit center at night.

Post by Baxter

Post by Baxter
Should MAX serve Vancouver? The inter-state task force that looked at

the

Post by Baxter
WHOLE transportation picture in the area said yes. Assuming that the

C-Tran

Post by Baxter
schedule is correct and you can make the trip in 16 minutes today, does

not

Post by Baxter
mean you will be able to make that same trip in 16 minutes ten years from
now.

But you could run an express bus down that corridor using the HOV lanes.
There is enough Vancouver-Portland traffic to support a dedicated express
link, five days a week if not more.

Do you think the task force didn't consider such a plan? They considered a
whole bunch of plans and, after weighing all the pros and cons, found that
extending MAX was the best alternative.

I was at the bloody meetings. They didn't give much thought to the express
bus proposal. The proposal was solely for a 7th Street-Transit Mall
express bus. This ignores the power of the HOV lane and the development
of major destinations in Vancouver. Instead of their alternative,
they could have spent a bit more and run a full network of service
to Fisher's Landing, Salmon Creek, and the Lloyd District/Eastside.
But they chose to downplay the express bus mode for their goals. This
is not unusual (preselecting something and the alternatives to achieve
the desired result), but that doesn't make it any more honest.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Hank Fung

Post by Baxter

While the people of Vancouver lose by adding yet another transfer and wait
to get into Portland.

North Portland is taxing itself to build InterstateMAX. Apparently
Vancouver wants it for free.

So let's punish Vancouver residents by making them transfer to a bus
and ride it for maybe 10 minutes just to get to Portland. Yeah, that'll
show them who's boss.

Sound to me like Vancouver wants it all for free. Why should Portland
subsidize Vancouver? If Vancouverites don't want to transfer, then they
should run their own bus line to wherever.

[scr]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 20:12:50 -0700, "Baxter"

Post by Baxter
Sound to me like Vancouver wants it all for free. Why should Portland
subsidize Vancouver? If Vancouverites don't want to transfer, then they
should run their own bus line to wherever.

I think that may well be what happens. The C-Tran expresses will
continue and bypass all the LRT activity.

scr

[david parsons]

Post by Hank Fung
So let's punish Vancouver residents by making them transfer to a bus
and ride it for maybe 10 minutes just to get to Portland. Yeah, that'll
show them who's boss.

Or, alternatively, they could simply ride Ctran route 105 and
avoid the local service completely.

____
david parsons \bi/ If you're going to ride a local service, there's
\/ not much sense in arguing that it's slow.

[Hank Fung]

Post by david parsons

Post by Hank Fung
So let's punish Vancouver residents by making them transfer to a bus
and ride it for maybe 10 minutes just to get to Portland. Yeah, that'll
show them who's boss.

Or, alternatively, they could simply ride Ctran route 105 and
avoid the local service completely.

It doesn't run on weekends and may not run during the middle of the day
if budget cuts go through. Certainly, it would be easy for C-Tran to
throw their hands up once IMAX opens, extend a few buses down to
Delta Park to eliminate the transfer for some people, and forget the
rest of them.

[scr]

B>> How quickly we forget, Baxter, or was that John?

Post by Baxter

Post by Hank Fung
MAX Expo Center to PCS: 25 minutes.
105, Vancouver Transit Center to 6th and Salmon: 16 minutes (in the HEIGHT
of rush hour, http://www.c-tran.com/105Wk.html)

Well, they say it - but have you ever tried to drive it? I have, and and
those timings look entirely implausible.

I've ridden it and the timing seems about right. Remember that the main
bottleneck southbound is the narrows at Delta Park, and the resulting
backup which stretches north into Clark County. Northbound, the bottleneck
is bypassed by the carpool lane.

Post by Baxter

Post by Hank Fung

Post by Hank Fung
Already, MAX loses.

No, the people of North Portland gain. Your C-Tran 105 is and express that
does not serve North Portland.

While the people of Vancouver lose by adding yet another transfer and wait
to get into Portland.

Post by Baxter
Should MAX serve Vancouver? The inter-state task force that looked at the
WHOLE transportation picture in the area said yes. Assuming that the C-Tran
schedule is correct and you can make the trip in 16 minutes today, does not
mean you will be able to make that same trip in 16 minutes ten years from
now.

But you could run an express bus down that corridor using the HOV lanes.
There is enough Vancouver-Portland traffic to support a dedicated express
link, five days a week if not more.

I don't think C-Tran will kill the 105 Express. They put the expresses
from the eastside projects into service after eastside MAX began.

The C-Tran 164 from east Vancouver takes 19 minutes to the north end
of the PDX Transit Mall.

If someone took the 165 to Parkrose and xferred to the Red Line, it
would be 15 + 28 + xfer wait time to downtown. The only reason anyon e
would xfer to LRT would be if they need an intermediate stop.

scr

[Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell]

Dateline: pdx.general, Sat, 19 Jul 2003 13:35:57 -0400.

Post by wrob
Did I mention overall ridership will decline since, by decreasing bus service
wherever MAX goes, you make it a zero sum game and fill up the tiny trains
with former bus riders, making MAX look like a "success" and bus a "failure"?
If MAX is all about saving money that would otherwise be poured into an
"inefficient" award-winning bus system, it seems to me it's really about
DISINVESTMENT in a more extensive system, replacing it with something
"simpler" and "more efficient". If all the trains didn't follow freeway
corridors, it might be simpler, but it would not leave room for existing
bus riders and additional "choice" riders on the trains, and you can't
have it both ways.

Down in Los Angeles there's a group called the Bus Riders Union that
opposes all new construction of lightrail on the grounds that it will
cut service for the bus system at the expense of lightrail riders.

I seem to remember a lawsuit where they wanted to force the MTA to
halt all lightrail projects and put all the money in the bus system
instead.

Maybe we need a group like that here in Portland.

[Hank Fung]

Post by Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell
Dateline: pdx.general, Sat, 19 Jul 2003 13:35:57 -0400.

Post by wrob
If MAX is all about saving money that would otherwise be poured into an
"inefficient" award-winning bus system, it seems to me it's really about
DISINVESTMENT in a more extensive system, replacing it with something
"simpler" and "more efficient". If all the trains didn't follow freeway
corridors, it might be simpler, but it would not leave room for existing
bus riders and additional "choice" riders on the trains, and you can't
have it both ways.

Down in Los Angeles there's a group called the Bus Riders Union that
opposes all new construction of lightrail on the grounds that it will
cut service for the bus system at the expense of lightrail riders.
I seem to remember a lawsuit where they wanted to force the MTA to
halt all lightrail projects and put all the money in the bus system
instead.
Maybe we need a group like that here in Portland.

The Los Angeles group was actually started to oppose the construction of
the subway, because it was eating up the money for buses. Basically,
what happened when the fiscal crisis at MTA broke was that MTA wanted to
get rid of all monthly passes, which was a really stupid move politically
and engendered distrust of their riders. Thus, the BRU was formed to
bring back the monthly pass. Unfortunately, they've been coopted by
a Marxist group and are doing other things like supporting the Palestinian
state and opposing light rail, even through minority communities which
would benefit greatly from it.

Other organizations have been founded in the "Riders' Union" model in
other cities. Considering the amount of transit riders in the area,
it is surprising that a riders' organization hasn't formed there.
Fortunately Tri-Met has had the money to expand bus service recently,
but there might be some resistance to any retrenching should the rail
money run out.

[Stuart Redford]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 19:53:12 -0700, Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell

Post by Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell
Dateline: pdx.general, Sat, 19 Jul 2003 13:35:57 -0400.

Post by wrob
Did I mention overall ridership will decline since, by decreasing bus service
wherever MAX goes, you make it a zero sum game and fill up the tiny trains
with former bus riders, making MAX look like a "success" and bus a "failure"?

I drive for Tri-Met.

One of the beefs current bus riders on Interstate have, particularly
elderly folks, is presently, they can walk to Interstate and turn one
block either way and find a bus stop. With MAX, they may have to walk
4-5 blocks both at their origination and destination.

Prior to MAX, there were express buses that ran from Gateway to the
downtown transit mall. I wonder how many folks that used the express
buses still use MAX and crawl into town. I contend parking
availibility at their destination is a major decision factor.

I wonder if C-Tran will continue the express buses once I-MAX is done.
The #105 from downtown Vancouver is wonderful during peak. I can't
imagine riders being happy being dumped at Delta Park to transfer to
the White Whale (my nickname for MAX).

C-Tran still has expresses that parallel eastside MAX. I'll try to ask
one of the C-Tran drivers what percentage of folks transfer from bus
to MAX at Parkrose.

Post by Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell
Down in Los Angeles there's a group called the Bus Riders Union that
opposes all new construction of lightrail on the grounds that it will
cut service for the bus system at the expense of lightrail riders.
I seem to remember a lawsuit where they wanted to force the MTA to
halt all lightrail projects and put all the money in the bus system
instead.
Maybe we need a group like that here in Portland.

Hmm. Interesting idea. Apart from the obsessive, anti-public property
Cascade Policy Institute, there is no pro-bus organization to my
knowledge.

scr
Vancouver, WA
I

[Allston Parking Refugee]

Post by Stuart Redford
Prior to MAX, there were express buses that ran from Gateway to the
downtown transit mall. I wonder how many folks that used the express
buses still use MAX and crawl into town. I contend parking
availibility at their destination is a major decision factor.

In places where rail makes sense, trains cruise along at at least 50
mph. Why does MAX have so many speed restrictions? 10 mph is
ridiculous, even for street-running systems.

-Apr

[Jason McHuff]

"Baxter" <***@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:<***@corp.supernews.com>...

... NO ADS PLEASE! Especially at the top.

Post by Allston Parking Refugee

Post by Stuart Redford
Prior to MAX, there were express buses that ran from Gateway to the
downtown transit mall. I wonder how many folks that used the express
buses still use MAX and crawl into town. I contend parking
availibility at their destination is a major decision factor.

In places where rail makes sense, trains cruise along at at least 50
mph. Why does MAX have so many speed restrictions? 10 mph is
ridiculous, even for street-running systems.

You are wrong about speed restrictions. The only place that there -might-
be a 10 mph speed restriction is across the Steel Bridge - and that is to
protect the bridge.

Actually, it might be because it's a draw bridge and the rail can't be
joined. Supposidly, they're going to upgrade it.

I think it was brought up in this thread that it is 10MPH at the east
end of the tunnel. I have talked to an engineer and he said it was
because of trespassers.

--Jason McHuff, Salem, OR

[Tim Kynerd]

Post by Jason McHuff
... NO ADS PLEASE! Especially at the top.

Post by Allston Parking Refugee

Post by Stuart Redford
Prior to MAX, there were express buses that ran from Gateway to the
downtown transit mall. I wonder how many folks that used the
express buses still use MAX and crawl into town. I contend parking
availibility at their destination is a major decision factor.

In places where rail makes sense, trains cruise along at at least 50
mph. Why does MAX have so many speed restrictions? 10 mph is
ridiculous, even for street-running systems.

You are wrong about speed restrictions. The only place that there
-might- be a 10 mph speed restriction is across the Steel Bridge - and
that is to protect the bridge.

Actually, it might be because it's a draw bridge and the rail can't be
joined. Supposidly, they're going to upgrade it.

On a light rail line that I used to work on (and will again soon), there
was a drawbridge at one end. The MAS over that bridge used to be 60 km/h
(about 36 mph), though it is now 30 km/h (about 18 mph) because the bridge
is deteriorating.

-snip-

[Jason McHuff]

"Baxter" <***@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:<***@corp.supernews.com>...

... [What did I just say about the ads at the top?]

Post by Jason McHuff
I think it was brought up in this thread that it is 10MPH at the east
end of the tunnel. I have talked to an engineer and he said it was
because of trespassers.

I've ridden it. I've noticed no inordinate slowing at either end of the
tunnel. Nor did you limit your "10MPH" to selected, short segments in your
original statement - you implied that 10mph was the highest speed for the
entire line, which is demonstrably false.

Huh? What do you mean "original statement"? I said that it is
limited to 10 MPH in the area close to the east portal of the west
hills tunnel. Also, they have signs up telling operaters how fast the
trains are to go. There, they say 10, just like other places where
they say 55.

Oh, and I often come up to Portland and do ride MAX at least some of
the times.

--Jason McHuff, Salem, OR

[Jason McHuff]

"Baxter" <***@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:<***@corp.supernews.com>...

... [usual ad at the top snipped]

Post by Jason McHuff
... [What did I just say about the ads at the top?]

Post by Jason McHuff
I think it was brought up in this thread that it is 10MPH at the east
end of the tunnel. I have talked to an engineer and he said it was
because of trespassers.

I've ridden it. I've noticed no inordinate slowing at either end of the
tunnel. Nor did you limit your "10MPH" to selected, short segments in

your

Post by Jason McHuff

original statement - you implied that 10mph was the highest speed for

the

Post by Jason McHuff

entire line, which is demonstrably false.

Huh? What do you mean "original statement"? I said that it is
limited to 10 MPH in the area close to the east portal of the west
hills tunnel.

The original statement was: "10 mph is ridiculous, even for street-running
systems."

Oh, now wonder I was having trouble. I didn't write that. I know better.

--Jason McHuff, Salem, OR

[Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell]

Dateline: pdx.general, Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:41:02 -0700.

Post by Allston Parking Refugee

Post by Stuart Redford
Prior to MAX, there were express buses that ran from Gateway to the
downtown transit mall. I wonder how many folks that used the express
buses still use MAX and crawl into town. I contend parking
availibility at their destination is a major decision factor.

In places where rail makes sense, trains cruise along at at least 50
mph. Why does MAX have so many speed restrictions? 10 mph is
ridiculous, even for street-running systems.

You are wrong about speed restrictions. The only place that there -might-
be a 10 mph speed restriction is across the Steel Bridge - and that is to
protect the bridge.

I'm sure they could crank it up to 50-55MPH in the tunnel, but they
don't. They could zip along Holliday St. pretty fast, but they don't
do that either. Same for downtown, if they had signal prioritization
that stopped all traffic between 6th and 1st or Broadway and 18th to
let MAX get from Pioneer Courthouse Square to the Steel Bridge or the
Robertson Tunnel very quickly, without stopping for cross traffic or
all those stops between the downtown exit points.

But they don't do that, instead they have all those stops downtown and
in the Lloyd District that slow down the MAX considerably. For a
"Metropolitan Area eXpress," MAX is horribly slow downtown.

Now what I would do, were I the high and mighty TriMet overlord, is
eliminate all MAX stops except for Pioneer Square, and one or two on
the downtown fringes like under the Burnside Bridge and Goose
Hollow/PGE Park. Make MAX an express-only thing downtown. The rest of
the stops could be served by a "downtown loop" bus. Maybe even one of
those articulated block-long ones to keep the capacity of a MAX car.
It could even drive in the MAX-only lane.

Something like that makes more sense then having a big LRT train
functioning like a bus on tracks downtown. Since TriMet is big on the
"hub and spoke" system of routing nearly all of the buses through
downtown, LRT should be used to get people downtown as fast as
possible to catch a bus to their destination.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell
Dateline: pdx.general, Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:41:02 -0700.

Post by Allston Parking Refugee

Post by Stuart Redford
Prior to MAX, there were express buses that ran from Gateway to the
downtown transit mall. I wonder how many folks that used the express
buses still use MAX and crawl into town. I contend parking
availibility at their destination is a major decision factor.

In places where rail makes sense, trains cruise along at at least 50
mph. Why does MAX have so many speed restrictions? 10 mph is
ridiculous, even for street-running systems.

You are wrong about speed restrictions. The only place that

there -might-

Post by Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell

be a 10 mph speed restriction is across the Steel Bridge - and that is to
protect the bridge.

I'm sure they could crank it up to 50-55MPH in the tunnel, but they
don't.

I've ridden it - they do.

Post by Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell
They could zip along Holliday St. pretty fast,

They can't - it's less than a mile from the Lloyd Center station to the 7th
Stree station.

<snip>

[Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell]

Dateline: pdx.general, Tue, 22 Jul 2003 09:09:12 -0700.

Post by Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell
Dateline: pdx.general, Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:41:02 -0700.

Post by Allston Parking Refugee

Post by Stuart Redford
Prior to MAX, there were express buses that ran from Gateway to the
downtown transit mall. I wonder how many folks that used the express
buses still use MAX and crawl into town. I contend parking
availibility at their destination is a major decision factor.

In places where rail makes sense, trains cruise along at at least 50
mph. Why does MAX have so many speed restrictions? 10 mph is
ridiculous, even for street-running systems.

You are wrong about speed restrictions. The only place that

there -might-

Post by Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell

be a 10 mph speed restriction is across the Steel Bridge - and that is to
protect the bridge.

I'm sure they could crank it up to 50-55MPH in the tunnel, but they
don't.

I've ridden it - they do.

I asked at the TriMet info booth down at Courthouse Sq. once, they
told me it goes about 40-45MPH. Without a visual reference to guess
MAX's speed in the tunnel, I've always taken them at their word.

I'll be e-mailing TriMet customer service to find out for sure.

Post by Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell
They could zip along Holliday St. pretty fast,

They can't - it's less than a mile from the Lloyd Center station to the 7th
Stree station.
<snip>

Since you've creatively snipped out the rest of my post that did in
fact mention the Lloyd stops, I'll reiterate.

Yeah, I know MAX slows down because of the Lloyd Center stops, the
Convention Center, Rose Garden, etc etc. That was the point.

For the 3 and 1/4th mile (roughly) stretch between the tunnel and the
Lloyd Center stop, MAX turns into a really big bus on rails that
serves downtown and the Lloyd District. The MAX schedule booklet
states that it's a 24 minute trip between the tunnel and Lloyd Center.
I've ridden MAX too, and it's closer to 30-35 minutes.

Operating MAX like a true express and eliminating the downtown crawl
would help tremendously. You claim there's no support for changing the
system like this -- I think there is. In order to convince Joe
Commuter that taking TriMet and the MAX is better then driving
someplace, they need to show it's faster or at least comparable to
their current commute and the traffic headaches associated with
driving. The 10 minute travel time between the Lloyd District stops
and the Oldtown Chinatown stop under Burnside might not seem like
alot, but if average driver Joe Commuter can get between Lloyd and
anywhere he needs to go downtown in less then 10, he'll probably stick
with driving.

Same for the westside, if the perception is that it's faster to drive
US-26 and I-405 to get to the eastside, Joe Commuter will likely just
drive rather then take transit.

Based on the number of cars I see on the freeway every morning, there
are still quite a few people who commute from the Gresham and
Beaverton areas and parts inbetween, probably due to all the growth in
the area. Speeding up MAX by eliminating the downtown/Lloyd stops
could entice them into taking a faster service, and using shuttle
buses to provide service for the fareless square loop between Goose
Hollow and Lloyd Center would pick up where MAX now leaves out.

[Baxter]

-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell
Dateline: pdx.general, Tue, 22 Jul 2003 09:09:12 -0700.
Operating MAX like a true express and eliminating the downtown crawl
would help tremendously. You claim there's no support for changing the
system like this -- I think there is.

Then put your money where your mouth is and get actual numbers. You keep
pissing and moaning, but never put forth any actual effort and instead just
fromage about 'how bad MAX is' because it's not designed how YOU think it
should be - even though you have no demonstrable background in Transit or
Urban Transportation Planning. You're just a amUsenet troll and/or a voice
on Talk Radio.

[Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell]

Dateline: pdx.general, Wed, 23 Jul 2003 08:08:56 -0700.

Post by Baxter

Post by Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell
Dateline: pdx.general, Tue, 22 Jul 2003 09:09:12 -0700.
Operating MAX like a true express and eliminating the downtown crawl
would help tremendously. You claim there's no support for changing the
system like this -- I think there is.

Then put your money where your mouth is and get actual numbers. You keep
pissing and moaning, but never put forth any actual effort and instead just
fromage about 'how bad MAX is' because it's not designed how YOU think it
should be - even though you have no demonstrable background in Transit or
Urban Transportation Planning. You're just a amUsenet troll and/or a voice
on Talk Radio.

Well, do *you* have a demonstratable background in transit/urban
planning? Answering everything with "where's the proof? show me
numbers!" does not make you an expert either.

...right, I'm a troll for asking where *you* degree in urban planning
is. After all, I'm just changing the argument by asking you the same
thing you asked me, huh? Pot, kettle, black.

Yup, MAX doesn't run the way I'd run it were I the high and mighty
TriMet commissioner. It's unlikely it ever will, because running MAX
as an express-only type deal is contrary to what TriMet, Metro, and
everyone else in the wide world of PDX transit want it to do: be a big
shiny bus on tracks that make people go "Ooooh... Ahhhh..." and
abandon their cars for the big bus that's not noisy or smelly or bumps
around on the road.

Which is nice, but LRT needs to be used for quick, efficient long-haul
commuting: the Beaverton to Gresham run, the Vancouver to Oregon City,
Beaverton to Wilsonville, Sherwood to Downtown, etc. *These* are the
people who are braving the freeway every day, not because they like
traffic jams, but because to them, transit is slow and won't get them
where they want to go fast enough.

Need proof? Look at any freeway any given morning. It's jam-packed
with traffic. I would wager, based on TriMet's Travel Smart program
tested in Multnomah Village last year, that a fair number of commuters
would switch or consider switching to transit rather then drive if
long-distance transit were attractive to them.

These people are who TriMet should be spending the big bucks on,
rather then spending millions to make a smoother ride for people who
hop on MAX downtown and deboard at the Lloyd Center. So if MAX is
"good" right now, why not make it "better" by keeping the same level
of service for those displaced by the bulldozed MAX stops yet
attracting even more riders?

This whole debate started on the theory that MAX on the bus mall will
wreck havoc with the bus system by slowing it down or getting in the
way. TriMet doesn't dispute this. So if bus mall MAX slows the bus
system down, those who can afford to skip transit and just drive may
very well do just that. Then there's more cars on the road, worse
service for people stuck on the buses, and messes up the whole system,
it makes sense to tinker with MAX to make sure MAX gets people to the
bus mall downtown as fast as possible. Making MAX an express, IMHO,
would do just that.

<Neat, first time I've been called a troll. This'll make the top story
on the Katt's Anti-Transit Hour talk show that I host on KXL every 8th
Friday during leap years...>

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell
Dateline: pdx.general, Wed, 23 Jul 2003 08:08:56 -0700.

Post by Baxter

Post by Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell
Dateline: pdx.general, Tue, 22 Jul 2003 09:09:12 -0700.
Operating MAX like a true express and eliminating the downtown crawl
would help tremendously. You claim there's no support for changing the
system like this -- I think there is.

Then put your money where your mouth is and get actual numbers. You keep
pissing and moaning, but never put forth any actual effort and instead just
fromage about 'how bad MAX is' because it's not designed how YOU think it
should be - even though you have no demonstrable background in Transit or
Urban Transportation Planning. You're just a amUsenet troll and/or a voice
on Talk Radio.

Well, do *you* have a demonstratable background in transit/urban
planning? Answering everything with "where's the proof? show me
numbers!" does not make you an expert either.
...right, I'm a troll for asking where *you* degree in urban planning
is. After all, I'm just changing the argument by asking you the same
thing you asked me, huh? Pot, kettle, black.

The difference is that you think your uninformed opinion is better than the
experts, while I'm willing to listen to those experts.

[Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell]

Dateline: pdx.general, Thu, 24 Jul 2003 07:45:33 -0700.

Post by Baxter

Post by Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell
Dateline: pdx.general, Wed, 23 Jul 2003 08:08:56 -0700.

Post by Baxter
Then put your money where your mouth is and get actual numbers. You keep
pissing and moaning, but never put forth any actual effort and instead

just

Post by Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell

Post by Baxter
fromage about 'how bad MAX is' because it's not designed how YOU think it
should be - even though you have no demonstrable background in Transit or
Urban Transportation Planning. You're just a amUsenet troll and/or a

voice

Post by Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell

Post by Baxter
on Talk Radio.

Well, do *you* have a demonstratable background in transit/urban
planning? Answering everything with "where's the proof? show me
numbers!" does not make you an expert either.
...right, I'm a troll for asking where *you* degree in urban planning
is. After all, I'm just changing the argument by asking you the same
thing you asked me, huh? Pot, kettle, black.

The difference is that you think your uninformed opinion is better than the
experts, while I'm willing to listen to those experts.

Ah, but you didn't answer my question. Exactly what makes your opinion
any less "uninformed" that you claim mine is? Are you a transportation
expert with a fancy Urban Studies degree, with years and years of
experience to prove me wrong with? Or am I wrong just because you say
so.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell
Dateline: pdx.general, Thu, 24 Jul 2003 07:45:33 -0700.

Post by Baxter

Post by Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell
Dateline: pdx.general, Wed, 23 Jul 2003 08:08:56 -0700.

Post by Baxter
Then put your money where your mouth is and get actual numbers. You keep
pissing and moaning, but never put forth any actual effort and instead

just

Post by Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell

Post by Baxter
fromage about 'how bad MAX is' because it's not designed how YOU think it
should be - even though you have no demonstrable background in Transit or
Urban Transportation Planning. You're just a amUsenet troll and/or a

voice

Post by Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell

Post by Baxter
on Talk Radio.

Well, do *you* have a demonstratable background in transit/urban
planning? Answering everything with "where's the proof? show me
numbers!" does not make you an expert either.
...right, I'm a troll for asking where *you* degree in urban planning
is. After all, I'm just changing the argument by asking you the same
thing you asked me, huh? Pot, kettle, black.

The difference is that you think your uninformed opinion is better than the
experts, while I'm willing to listen to those experts.

Ah, but you didn't answer my question. Exactly what makes your opinion
any less "uninformed" that you claim mine is? Are you a transportation
expert with a fancy Urban Studies degree, with years and years of
experience to prove me wrong with? Or am I wrong just because you say
so.

Jeez, what a Sophist. You're trying to imply that if I'm uninformed, then
your opinion is better than the experts.

Again: what I've said is that I know that I know that I am untrained and
uninformed so I don't try to set myself superior to the experts while you,
on the other hand, while untrained and uninformed presume yourself superior
to those experts.

[b***@despammed.com]

Post by Baxter

Post by Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell
...right, I'm a troll for asking where *you* degree in urban planning
is. After all, I'm just changing the argument by asking you the same
thing you asked me, huh? Pot, kettle, black.

The difference is that you think your uninformed opinion is better than the
experts, while I'm willing to listen to those experts.

Depending on who the experts are. Talk to Thomas White sometime. He's a
railroad transportation planner who has worked on rail systems of all
types in many different countries since the 1960's, and is currently
employed by the state of Washington in eliminating bottle necks on rail
proposals on the Amtrak Cascades route in Washington. His opinion of MAX
line utilization is considerably uncomplimentary to the people who planned
it.

[Allston Parking Refugee]

Post by Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell
These people are who TriMet should be spending the big bucks on,
rather then spending millions to make a smoother ride for people who
hop on MAX downtown and deboard at the Lloyd Center. So if MAX is
"good" right now, why not make it "better" by keeping the same level
of service for those displaced by the bulldozed MAX stops yet
attracting even more riders?

Serve both: build a 4-track line with express and local service.

-Apr

[Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell]

Dateline: pdx.general, 24 Jul 2003 12:35:50 -0700.

Post by Allston Parking Refugee

Post by Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell
These people are who TriMet should be spending the big bucks on,
rather then spending millions to make a smoother ride for people who
hop on MAX downtown and deboard at the Lloyd Center. So if MAX is
"good" right now, why not make it "better" by keeping the same level
of service for those displaced by the bulldozed MAX stops yet
attracting even more riders?

Serve both: build a 4-track line with express and local service.

They can't.

Well, at least not cheaply. The ROW through the Lloyd District runs
down the middle of Holliday St., and in Sullivan's Gulch where it
parallels I-84 I don't think there's enough room due to the freight
train tracks there.

Same for the westside, it uses the ROW of the old Oregon Electric RR
through Beaverton and Hillsboro, there's no room to add new tracks
without rerouting the whole thing. There's a 3rd track between the
Beaverton Central and Sunset TC, but I think they use that for turning
around the Airport MAX train that goes out that far.

I'm sure it could be done, it would just cost a heck of a lot. This is
probably where the "If we ever decide to spend the billions of dollars
on a subway, we'll add in a few more tracks" theory comes into play.

[Jason McHuff]

Post by Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell
Dateline: pdx.general, 24 Jul 2003 12:35:50 -0700.

Post by Allston Parking Refugee

Post by Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell
These people are who TriMet should be spending the big bucks on,
rather then spending millions to make a smoother ride for people who
hop on MAX downtown and deboard at the Lloyd Center. So if MAX is
"good" right now, why not make it "better" by keeping the same level
of service for those displaced by the bulldozed MAX stops yet
attracting even more riders?

Serve both: build a 4-track line with express and local service.

They can't.
Well, at least not cheaply. The ROW through the Lloyd District runs
down the middle of Holliday St., and in Sullivan's Gulch where it
parallels I-84 I don't think there's enough room due to the freight
train tracks there.
Same for the westside, it uses the ROW of the old Oregon Electric RR
through Beaverton and Hillsboro, there's no room to add new tracks
without rerouting the whole thing. There's a 3rd track between the
Beaverton Central and Sunset TC, but I think they use that for turning
around the Airport MAX train that goes out that far.
I'm sure it could be done, it would just cost a heck of a lot. This is
probably where the "If we ever decide to spend the billions of dollars
on a subway, we'll add in a few more tracks" theory comes into play.

They probably could use the auto lanes to fit another track on
Burnside, Holliday, Morrison, Yamhill and 18th. There may also be
room west of Beaverton. Third tracks exist in some places, but are
for storing trains, like the one at Beaverton TC (not for Airport MAX
until Sept.).

However, they don't need 4 tracks, IMO. They just need to get it off
the street. Speed and capacity are not a problem outside of the Goose
Hollow-Lloyd District area. And they can do that somewhat cheaply by
elevating it.

Somebody PLEASE start a petition to elevate MAX. I think you all are
right in saying that Metro/TriMet/etc. cares about form over function
and in doing so insists that MAX must be on the street. Lets tell
them that function shoud be above form. I would do it but while I do
come up to Portland a lot, I do not live there.

We don't need to start the debate here again.

--Jason McHuff, Salem, OR

[Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell]

Dateline: pdx.general, 25 Jul 2003 17:05:29 -0700.

Post by Jason McHuff
Somebody PLEASE start a petition to elevate MAX. I think you all are
right in saying that Metro/TriMet/etc. cares about form over function
and in doing so insists that MAX must be on the street. Lets tell
them that function shoud be above form. I would do it but while I do
come up to Portland a lot, I do not live there.

Transit is a regional thing, I'm sure if you went to a Metro meeting
and brought it up they wouldn't say, "Ew! You're not from around here,
punk! Begone!"

Besides, if you've ever used a Park-and-Ride to hop on the MAX to
downtown or whatnot, you're TriMet's target audience. Send them
e-mail. Heck, send them a google groups link to this whole thread.
They'll think we're all crazy then.

[Jason McHuff]

Post by Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell
Dateline: pdx.general, 25 Jul 2003 17:05:29 -0700.

Post by Jason McHuff
Somebody PLEASE start a petition to elevate MAX. I think you all are
right in saying that Metro/TriMet/etc. cares about form over function
and in doing so insists that MAX must be on the street. Lets tell
them that function shoud be above form. I would do it but while I do
come up to Portland a lot, I do not live there.

Transit is a regional thing, I'm sure if you went to a Metro meeting
and brought it up they wouldn't say, "Ew! You're not from around here,
punk! Begone!"

You mean because they wouldn't like the idea? That's why I think it
should go on the ballot.

Post by Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell
Besides, if you've ever used a Park-and-Ride to hop on the MAX to
downtown or whatnot, you're TriMet's target audience. Send them
e-mail. Heck, send them a google groups link to this whole thread.
They'll think we're all crazy then.

I sent them the message that I used to start my thread. Somebody said
that they would pass it on.

--Jason McHuff, Salem, OR; frequent visitor of Portland

[Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell]

Dateline: pdx.general, 26 Jul 2003 23:12:57 -0700.

Post by Jason McHuff
You mean because they wouldn't like the idea? That's why I think it
should go on the ballot.

To get the funding for it, I would think that the project would have
to be put on the ballot.

A couple years ago Florida had a constitutional amendment on the
ballot that demanded the state build a commuter rail line. I guess
they got fed up with waiting and wanted to make it unconstitutional
that the state wasn't building them the line. It passed.

[Jason McHuff]

Post by Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell
Dateline: pdx.general, 26 Jul 2003 23:12:57 -0700.

Post by Jason McHuff
You mean because they wouldn't like the idea? That's why I think it
should go on the ballot.

To get the funding for it, I would think that the project would have
to be put on the ballot.

My idea was to just put it on as a poll question, e.g. "Should MAX be
elevated?". However, this would mean that it would possibly have to
go for a vote again, this time for the financing. Also, it would
probably cost $$$ for the citizens to get a financing proposal ready
for the first initative.

Post by Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell
A couple years ago Florida had a constitutional amendment on the
ballot that demanded the state build a commuter rail line. I guess
they got fed up with waiting and wanted to make it unconstitutional
that the state wasn't building them the line. It passed.

Actually, it was high-speed rail. But it was in response to the the
state (esp. the gov) saying no to it.

--Jason McHuff, Salem, OR

[david parsons]

Post by Allston Parking Refugee
Serve both: build a 4-track line with express and local service.

Or do skip-stop and make every train a local and an express.


But that would require a George Krambles, and he's not around
any more.

____
david parsons \bi/ And Tri-Met has become so unimaginative that they'd
\/ never hire him in the first place.

[Jason McHuff]

Post by Stuart Redford
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 19:53:12 -0700, Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell

Post by Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell
Dateline: pdx.general, Sat, 19 Jul 2003 13:35:57 -0400.

Post by wrob
Did I mention overall ridership will decline since, by decreasing bus service
wherever MAX goes, you make it a zero sum game and fill up the tiny trains
with former bus riders, making MAX look like a "success" and bus a "failure"?

I drive for Tri-Met.
One of the beefs current bus riders on Interstate have, particularly
elderly folks, is presently, they can walk to Interstate and turn one
block either way and find a bus stop. With MAX, they may have to walk
4-5 blocks both at their origination and destination.

This is an issue when taking out stops on a transit route. Except
maybe the Burnside portion, none of the previous MAX lines were
on-street, where they replaced a local bus route. I know that they
have tried to take out stops to speed up some bus lines.

Post by Stuart Redford
Prior to MAX, there were express buses that ran from Gateway to the
downtown transit mall. I wonder how many folks that used the express
buses still use MAX and crawl into town. I contend parking
availibility at their destination is a major decision factor.

Half of the west side riders are new to transit, even tho 8 (?) busses
used to take US 26 into Portland.

Post by Stuart Redford
I wonder if C-Tran will continue the express buses once I-MAX is done.
The #105 from downtown Vancouver is wonderful during peak. I can't
imagine riders being happy being dumped at Delta Park to transfer to
the White Whale (my nickname for MAX).

This is being debated. As long as it is not a lot slower then MAX, I
think it would be a good idea. However, I have heard that MAX will be
25% faster than #5 TriMet bus.

Post by Stuart Redford
C-Tran still has expresses that parallel eastside MAX. I'll try to ask
one of the C-Tran drivers what percentage of folks transfer from bus
to MAX at Parkrose.

...
--Jason McHuff, Salem, OR

[Michael D. Setty]

Post by b***@despammed.com

12. Finally, Tri-Met is busily studying installation of MAX light
rail tracks on the downtown bus mall originally opened in 1977.
This serves two main purposes: (1) allows Tri-Met to double MAX
capacity--which will be reached once the Interstate Avenue line opens;
and (2) removes a significant number of buses from downtown Portland,
reducing the blight caused by the operation of hundreds of diesel
buses per hour on 5th and 6th Streets. The merchants will love MAX
trains compared to buses, beleive me.

"Hundreds of buses per hour"? Those are not going to be replaced by
running a single light rail train through downtown once every 15 minutes.
Besides, those buses serve many areas of Portland that will never see MAX
under the current plans.

I would guess MAX trains would run at least every 3-5 minutes,
depending on how many routes wind up using the 5th-6th street MAX
route.

[b***@despammed.com]

Post by Michael D. Setty
I would guess MAX trains would run at least every 3-5 minutes,
depending on how many routes wind up using the 5th-6th street MAX
route.

The plan they have stated has been for only the interstate Ave line to use
the Transit mall, and it would be once every 15 minutes.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

:> I would guess MAX trains would run at least every 3-5 minutes,
:> depending on how many routes wind up using the 5th-6th street MAX
:> route.
: The plan they have stated has been for only the interstate Ave line to

use

: the Transit mall, and it would be once every 15 minutes.
Of course, the longer-term plan (not yet funded or finalized) is to
extend MAX south back across the river to Milwaukie, and that's one of
the rationales for putting MAX on the mall. Presumably trains would
run more often than once every 15 minutes in that case.
Without the full N-S scenario, putting MAX on the mall makes no sense
at all.

And without the line to Milwaukie it's not going to happen at all. The
thing that comes to mind is that with MAX serving North and South parts of
town, there will be fewer buses on the mall.

[b***@despammed.com]

Post by Baxter

Of course, the longer-term plan (not yet funded or finalized) is to
extend MAX south back across the river to Milwaukie, and that's one of
the rationales for putting MAX on the mall. Presumably trains would
run more often than once every 15 minutes in that case.
Without the full N-S scenario, putting MAX on the mall makes no sense
at all.

And without the line to Milwaukie it's not going to happen at all. The
thing that comes to mind is that with MAX serving North and South parts of
town, there will be fewer buses on the mall.

My impression from the newspaper articles (which really haven't been
complete because we get the Clackamas County edition of the Oregonian's
metro section) is that construction will be:

1. Expand Interstate MAX down the transit mall.

2. Build the line from Gateway to Clackamas Town Center

3. Downtown Portland to Milwaukie.

If I remember right (and please don't assume that this is the case) the
estimated years for opening that have been kicked around are:

"Sometime real soon" for 1

2 in approx 2008

3 in approx 2015


Of course, since all of this is just kicking numbers around at this point,
trying to put an exact year on that isn't particularly helpful.

In any event, because the Milwaukie to Portland segment is the lowest
priority on the list, I would expect about 10 years between the time the
transit mall section is put in and the extension to Milwaukie happens.

So, yes, in short it makes no sense at all to put the line on the transit
mall to begin with right now, but that is apparently what they want to do.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by b***@despammed.com

Post by Baxter

Of course, the longer-term plan (not yet funded or finalized) is to
extend MAX south back across the river to Milwaukie, and that's one of
the rationales for putting MAX on the mall. Presumably trains would
run more often than once every 15 minutes in that case.
Without the full N-S scenario, putting MAX on the mall makes no sense
at all.

And without the line to Milwaukie it's not going to happen at all. The
thing that comes to mind is that with MAX serving North and South parts of
town, there will be fewer buses on the mall.

My impression from the newspaper articles (which really haven't been
complete because we get the Clackamas County edition of the Oregonian's
1. Expand Interstate MAX down the transit mall.

When InterstateMAX comes on line next year, it will connect with E/W MAX at
the Rose Garden, and go through downtown on the existing MAX tracks to the
turnaround just east of the Civic Stadium.

Post by b***@despammed.com
2. Build the line from Gateway to Clackamas Town Center

That's next. They have some funding lined up for that project - I don't
know if they have it all.

Post by b***@despammed.com
3. Downtown Portland to Milwaukie.

This is the part that is in the planning stages now, and the part that would
involve running the MAX lines on the Transit Mall. At this point, they want
to do it, but don't have the funding lined up.

<snip>

[wrob]

Post by Baxter
And without the line to Milwaukie it's not going to happen at all. The
thing that comes to mind is that with MAX serving North and South parts of
town, there will be fewer buses on the mall.

In other words, destroy the bus system by making it a disconnected feeder network
wholly dependent on full-fare transfers to MAX.

-BER

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by wrob

Post by Baxter
And without the line to Milwaukie it's not going to happen at all. The
thing that comes to mind is that with MAX serving North and South parts of
town, there will be fewer buses on the mall.

In other words, destroy the bus system by making it a disconnected feeder network
wholly dependent on full-fare transfers to MAX.

Your problem is that you're thinking "bus system" when you should be
thinking "transportation system".

[wrob]

Post by Baxter

Post by wrob
In other words, destroy the bus system by making it a disconnected
feeder network wholly dependent on full-fare transfers to MAX.

Your problem is that you're thinking "bus system" when you should be
thinking "transportation system".

Bullshit. A light rail "system" should be able to stand on its own.
When I go to a destination served by Metro, I do not want to have to
transfer to a bus when I get to the other end of my trip. No-one
does (unless the bus is a free shuttle that comes every 5-10 minutes
-- the ONLY real equivalent of an in-system transfer.)

Since MAX is incapable of standing on its own and in fact takes the
rider within walking distance of NO real "places" other than the zoo,
the airport, and downtown (reachable much faster by bus for most
SE/N/NE/NW residents).

Your problem is you're thinking in terms of people who are going to
drive anyway, either to the rail station or to their jobs directly,
with no real thought for the thousands of people that rely on the
bus to do directly between home and work. The bus transit centers
are placed where they are so that nobody has to go out of their way
or wait too long to make a bus transfer and it is FREE.

That is an in-system transfer. The Eastside N/S and suburb-suburb
routes, on the other hand, connect most NE/SE residents to MAX are
extremely poor and inefficient, depositing people on overpasses at
the freeway that are 90 degrees away from the path to their jobs.

As long as MAX does not connect every transit center to every
other transit center, with no forced transfers, it is not an
alternative to the existing bus SYSTEM. There is no complementary
light rail SYSTEM, there is a light rail LINE with a northward
extension and a few spurs (existing or proposed to the Airport,
Milwaukie and the very-low-density Clackamas corridor).

Your trouble is that you fail to distinguish between the best
interests of the transportation SYSTEM and the best interests
of ridership. Your approach does nothing to increase ridership
but kick people off the bus system that exists already. Were
it not for cannibalizing bus riders a line to the Airport,
Clackamas or Milwaukie that passes through so few pedestrian
friendly places would not even be proposed, because the
destinations available on the existing "network" of tracks
would not support it.

-BER

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by wrob

Post by Baxter

Post by wrob
In other words, destroy the bus system by making it a disconnected
feeder network wholly dependent on full-fare transfers to MAX.

Your problem is that you're thinking "bus system" when you should be
thinking "transportation system".

Bullshit. A light rail "system" should be able to stand on its own.

Your -unsupported- opinion. TriMet is into Public -Transportation-, not
your wishful thinking. You're welcome, however, to move to Libertopia and
demonstrate how such a 'stand-alone' system would fail - er, I mean "work".

[Hank Fung]

Post by Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by wrob

Post by Baxter

Post by wrob
In other words, destroy the bus system by making it a disconnected
feeder network wholly dependent on full-fare transfers to MAX.

Your problem is that you're thinking "bus system" when you should be
thinking "transportation system".

Bullshit. A light rail "system" should be able to stand on its own.

Your -unsupported- opinion. TriMet is into Public -Transportation-, not
your wishful thinking. You're welcome, however, to move to Libertopia and
demonstrate how such a 'stand-alone' system would fail - er, I mean "work".

But Brian is right though. If Tri-Met is into "Public Transportation"
as they allege, then they should want to carry the most amount of
people possible. It's been proven that transfers reduce ridership,
even if their trip become marginally faster as a result. (It certainly
takes more than the few minutes saved if Clackamas MAX were built, for
trips to Downtown Portland.) And MAX is certainly no subway or fast
light rail system, with its slow running in Lloyd Center and 10 mph
speed coming out of the Robertson Tunnel.

The number of people MAX and buses will attract through a hub-and-spoke
system focused at MAX stations will be less than the number of people
displaced by such a system.

[wrob]

Post by Hank Fung

Post by Baxter

Post by wrob

Post by Baxter
Your problem is that you're thinking "bus system" when you should be
thinking "transportation system".

Bullshit. A light rail "system" should be able to stand on its own.

Your -unsupported- opinion. TriMet is into Public -Transportation-, not
your wishful thinking. You're welcome, however, to move to Libertopia and
demonstrate how such a 'stand-alone' system would fail - er, I mean "work".

But Brian is right though. If Tri-Met is into "Public Transportation"
as they allege, then they should want to carry the most amount of
people possible. It's been proven that transfers reduce ridership,
even if their trip become marginally faster as a result. (It certainly
takes more than the few minutes saved if Clackamas MAX were built, for
trips to Downtown Portland.) And MAX is certainly no subway or fast
light rail system, with its slow running in Lloyd Center and 10 mph
speed coming out of the Robertson Tunnel.
The number of people MAX and buses will attract through a hub-and-spoke
system focused at MAX stations will be less than the number of people
displaced by such a system.

As is demonstrated by the DC Metro system, one of the fastest and
most popular in the country, it spent years increasing system miles
and ridership even as the bus system ridership (once-great, neglected
by WMATA) declined faster. It wasn't until recently that they broke
this vicious cycle.

Now they're adding parallel bus routes because (thanks in part to
one-size-fits-all light rail fanatics who oppose any new subway
proposals because -- actual quote -- "LA proves subways can't be
built anymore") trains are packed and WMATA has no way to expand
capacity on the rails. Of course, the good news is this results
in added capacity, but it shouldn't take Portland 25 years to
figure this out. Meanwhile DC's system, although it has the
second-highest rail ridership, carries only slightly more people
than the bus system alone did in the 50's. There's a reason we
should continue to spend money, as a society, on buses.

It's like arguing (as they did in the 50's) that the increasing
popularity of auto ownership made sidewalks obsolete, hence we
could cut them back, remove them from "dangerous" major roads,
and convert them from continuous pathways to "feeders" for
pedestrians (mostly brownbaggers and families with children)
to access parks and parking lots, from whence they could,
with ease, use the auto system for all longer trips.

Look where that thinking got us. All the pedestrians had
nowhere to go BUT the nearest playground, so they drive
everywhere and overload the network. I'm referring to the
cutback of sidewalks here, not the relative benefits/evils
of additional road construction.

Clearly a massive investment in any new mode of transport
that simply displaces another mode -- even if the other mode
is simply replaced elsewhere, the same way pedestrian paths
in parks replaced integrated sidewalks in the 60s and 70s --
is a Pyrrhic victory.

Especially when all the people so displaced respond by giving up
and attempting to actually use the new mode that they're clearly
being encouraged to use. Thus overloading it with "old" trips and
preventing "new" trips from being accommodated by the new system
of roads/rail/teleporters/whatever.

-Brian

[Exile on Market Street]

Post by wrob
Now they're adding parallel bus routes because (thanks in part to
one-size-fits-all light rail fanatics who oppose any new subway
proposals because -- actual quote -- "LA proves subways can't be
built anymore") trains are packed and WMATA has no way to expand
capacity on the rails.

Your point about the purpose of the transportation system as opposed to
Baxter's not-quite-getting-it is well taken, and it's interesting to see
LA used here as a reason to scuttle needed new rapid transit lines in a
city that *proves the opposite of what the light-rail fanatics you cite
say*.

However, WMATA *does* have a way to add capacity to the system at the
margins. It's called upgrading the power supply and signaling to
accommodate 8-car trains, then buying the additional cars needed to
provide 8-car trains at peak times on all routes.

--Sandy "am I gonna be packed like a sardine on my trip from Union
Station to College Park tomorrow morning? Maybe I should head outbound
to Fort Totten rather than inbound to Gallery Place and get my
unridden-mileage ride in later" Smith

[John R Cambron]

Post by Exile on Market Street

Post by wrob
Now they're adding parallel bus routes because (thanks in part to
one-size-fits-all light rail fanatics who oppose any new subway
proposals because -- actual quote -- "LA proves subways can't be
built anymore") trains are packed and WMATA has no way to expand
capacity on the rails.

Your point about the purpose of the transportation system as opposed to
Baxter's not-quite-getting-it is well taken, and it's interesting to see
LA used here as a reason to scuttle needed new rapid transit lines in a
city that *proves the opposite of what the light-rail fanatics you cite
say*.
However, WMATA *does* have a way to add capacity to the system at the
margins. It's called upgrading the power supply and signaling to
accommodate 8-car trains, then buying the additional cars needed to
provide 8-car trains at peak times on all routes.

When I first heard this excuse for not being able operate 8
car trains a couple of years ago, I thought what kind of a load of
bull crap is WMATA trying to feed us. Mind you I kind of except
the traction power capacity limitation. But train control for
properly birthing 8 car trains in stations, this is BS.

Before WMATA got in the car shortage fix that began after
starting the Yellow Line service out of the lower level of Gallery
Place (F01) started. WMATA regularly dispatched and operated 8 car
trains with little or no platform birthing problems. The only
thing that I can think that are not telling us as the reason why
the train control need to be upgraded is the hardware that was
proven to be reliable on the unupgraded Rohr cars is not built to
the same or higher specifications on the upgraded Rohr car and the
later cars that never or seldom were run in 8 car consists.

It seem to me before WMATA starts throwing money at upgraded train
control hardware and or software what they should first do is to
go back top the past and look at what tolerances were needed in
the hardware and or software to maintain the equipment to allow
8 car train operations.

They might learn from past practice what worked and what didn't
to save money on the so called upgrade. Some of the fixes might be
as simple as modifying some simple components to stricter or
tighter tolerances.

Post by Exile on Market Street
--Sandy "am I gonna be packed like a sardine on my trip from Union
Station to College Park tomorrow morning? Maybe I should head outbound
to Fort Totten rather than inbound to Gallery Place and get my
unridden-mileage ride in later" Smith

[David Lesher]

Post by John R Cambron
When I first heard this excuse for not being able operate 8
car trains a couple of years ago, I thought what kind of a load of
bull crap is WMATA trying to feed us. Mind you I kind of except
the traction power capacity limitation. But train control for
properly birthing 8 car trains in stations, this is BS.

I saw a note in WashPost that they will run 8-car tests on the Red Line
after closing...

[John R Cambron]

Post by David Lesher

Post by John R Cambron
When I first heard this excuse for not being able operate 8
car trains a couple of years ago, I thought what kind of a load of
bull crap is WMATA trying to feed us. Mind you I kind of except
the traction power capacity limitation. But train control for
properly birthing 8 car trains in stations, this is BS.

I saw a note in WashPost that they will run 8-car tests on the Red Line
after closing...

I also heard the same from two other news outlets. There also is
a press release at WMATA explaining what is going to be done as
part of these tests;

http://www.wmata.com/about/MET_NEWS/PressReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=129

I sounds to me like the ATO station stop passive and active
markers used to spot the trains at platforms have fallen out of
tolerance and they are looking at how they can bring it back
into tolerance and possibly add some other markers to make the
station stopping system more precise.

[David Lesher]

Post by Exile on Market Street
However, WMATA *does* have a way to add capacity to the system at the
margins. It's called upgrading the power supply and signaling to
accommodate 8-car trains, then buying the additional cars needed to
provide 8-car trains at peak times on all routes.

And assuming the regular poster here is correct, by going to 90 second
headways as well.

If they could afford the rolling stock....

Post by Exile on Market Street
--Sandy "am I gonna be packed like a sardine on my trip from Union
Station to College Park tomorrow morning? Maybe I should head outbound
to Fort Totten rather than inbound to Gallery Place and get my
unridden-mileage ride in later" Smith

Well, you can choose on the spot; Union Station is center-platform.
And even if tight, the other way is only 2 stops. (The outbound
Green will have room for bowling lessons.)

[Exile on Market Street]

Post by David Lesher

Post by Exile on Market Street
--Sandy "am I gonna be packed like a sardine on my trip from Union
Station to College Park tomorrow morning? Maybe I should head outbound
to Fort Totten rather than inbound to Gallery Place and get my
unridden-mileage ride in later" Smith

Well, you can choose on the spot; Union Station is center-platform.
And even if tight, the other way is only 2 stops. (The outbound
Green will have room for bowling lessons.)

FWIW, I went down to the platform at Union Station and decided I'd take
the first train that arrived. It was Shady Grove-bound. No, I wasn't
packed in like a sardine.

*That* happened at 5 today at Gallery Place, transferring from the
Yellow Line to the Red Line and running afoul of a design "feature" that
constricts circulation at that station--and worse still, it's one that
cannot be fixed, or could be fixed only at enormous expense.

The Washingtonians here can probably figure out the feature I'm talking
about.

--Sandy "full trip report coming" Smith

[David Lesher]

Exile on Market Street <***@pobox.upenn.edu> writes:


{packed platform}

Post by Exile on Market Street
*That* happened at 5 today at Gallery Place, transferring from the
Yellow Line to the Red Line and running afoul of a design "feature" that
constricts circulation at that station--and worse still, it's one that
cannot be fixed, or could be fixed only at enormous expense.
The Washingtonians here can probably figure out the feature I'm talking
about.

It's really not THAT bad. Worst case, you wait until one train
arrives & sucks all the tourists off. Or cross over and use the
other side.

There's also plans to install a pedx tunnel to Metro Center so as
to offload much of the Green/Yellow<->Blue/Orange traffic from the
Red Line.

[wrob]

Post by David Lesher
{packed platform}

Post by Exile on Market Street
*That* happened at 5 today at Gallery Place, transferring from the
Yellow Line to the Red Line and running afoul of a design "feature" that
constricts circulation at that station--and worse still, it's one that
cannot be fixed, or could be fixed only at enormous expense.
The Washingtonians here can probably figure out the feature I'm talking
about.

It's really not THAT bad. Worst case, you wait until one train
arrives & sucks all the tourists off. Or cross over and use the
other side.
There's also plans to install a pedx tunnel to Metro Center so as
to offload much of the Green/Yellow<->Blue/Orange traffic from the
Red Line.

A pedx tunnel between the two stations would be a vast money pit,
unfortunately. At best, they should connect the 9th/11th street
mezzanines. That's all they really have to do.

Rather than destroying the Metro Center cross-vault as they've proposed,
a mezzannine-mezzanine connection could connect the west end of Gallery Place
directly to the plaza entrance of Metro Center at 12th and G sts. NW, with
a down escalator opening up onto the transept opposite the Orange Line stairs.
Pedestrians trying to get from the eastbound Red line platform to Gallery Place
can just use the existing mezannine to get to the tunnel.

Anyway, an in-system pedestrian tunnel connecting Farragut West to Farragut North
(creating a single Farragut Square station with the system's only in-system
retail shops under 17th street) would be far more cost-effective at getting people
off the train before they reach Metro Center! The two stations were already
designed to be merged into a transfer station.

-Brian

[wrob]

Post by Exile on Market Street

Post by wrob
Now they're adding parallel bus routes because (thanks in part to
one-size-fits-all light rail fanatics who oppose any new subway
proposals because -- actual quote -- "LA proves subways can't be
built anymore") trains are packed and WMATA has no way to expand
capacity on the rails.

Your point about the purpose of the transportation system as opposed to
Baxter's not-quite-getting-it is well taken, and it's interesting to see
LA used here as a reason to scuttle needed new rapid transit lines in a
city that *proves the opposite of what the light-rail fanatics you cite
say*.

Keep in mind I support light rail in DC on certain routes, such as Routes
1, 7 in VA, Little River Tpk, and the I-270/Montrose corridor in MD.

But the advocates of Metrotram picked the -wrong- routes... densely packed
corridors with narrow rights-of way and lots of hills where a streetcar can't
easily transition underground and has no median in which to make station stops.
As a result the proposals generally amount to little more than a bus on rails,
not going as far as a subway or existing bus line would go (for fear of actually
having to go underground to reach existing centers of activity at the transfer
points!) and reducing street parking, street trees and sidewalks, thus degrading
the very qualities that attracted transit to these narrow, densely developed
rights-of-way in the first place.

(When you're in DC, Sandy, check out the Columbia Pike/Seminary Road corridor,
which goes from I-395 to the Pentagon via Baileys Crossroads -- perfect for a
Metro line, which is what it was intended to be back in the early 60's, but a
light rail line simply wouldn't work for reasons that will quickly become
obvious to anyone catching a movie at the old Arlington Cinema & Drafthouse.)

Post by Exile on Market Street
However, WMATA *does* have a way to add capacity to the system at the
margins. It's called upgrading the power supply and signaling to
accommodate 8-car trains, then buying the additional cars needed to
provide 8-car trains at peak times on all routes.

They are working on this.

Post by Exile on Market Street
--Sandy "am I gonna be packed like a sardine on my trip from Union
Station to College Park tomorrow morning? Maybe I should head outbound
to Fort Totten rather than inbound to Gallery Place and get my
unridden-mileage ride in later" Smith

Is this unridden route-mileage or unridden track-mileage you're trying to cover??
;-) I've found that ridership continues to increase despite the recent fare hike.

In fact, they increased the hours in an attempt to offset ridership loss from the
fare hike -- 3 AM on weekends. My train is now packed at 10 PM on Monday night,
and everybody on the last car gets off at my station, which is pretty impressive
given how sleepy our neighborhood used to be. I'd love to see Portland's system
pull stunts like that. At least Dallas has a fighting chance, being a much more
high-infrastructure system.

-BER at the Electric Maid, 1/2 block from Takoma Metro...

[david parsons]

Post by wrob

Post by Baxter

Post by wrob
In other words, destroy the bus system by making it a disconnected
feeder network wholly dependent on full-fare transfers to MAX.

Your problem is that you're thinking "bus system" when you should be
thinking "transportation system".

Bullshit. A light rail "system" should be able to stand on its own.

That's, um, a philosophy I've never heard of before. So you're
saying that unless you can get everywhere you want by train, there's
no point in running trains? Would that also apply to commuter rail
systems (in most cases, the commuter rail is roughly duplicated by
bus service, so [assuming infinite time] you can easily get to and
from work by taking several busses), elevated systems, and busses?

Post by wrob
When I go to a destination served by Metro, I do not want to have to
transfer to a bus when I get to the other end of my trip.

Good for you. Consider yourself fortunate that you can do a
single-seat commute without resorting to using a SOV. I believe you
are a minority (In my life, I've only had one job where I had a
single-seat commute by mass transit, and that involved a 3/4th mile
walk at the job end [not a particularly pleasant experience in the
upper midwest during the height of winter]; I've had EL-bus
transfers [or El-EL, if I didn't mind spending another 20 minutes in
transit], bus-bus transfers [including one in Portland with a 45-e
minute layover in downtown Portland waiting for the {usually empty
except for me} bus that dropped me off 1/2 mile from work. That one
got old very fast and I had reverted to SOVs exclusively before
Tri-Met opened their Hillsboro interurban], bus-trolley-bus
transfers [the route that replaced the previous bus-bus transfer.
It was as fast and carried significantly more riders on the last
two legs of the trip], and several airplane-bus transfers.

Post by wrob
Since MAX is incapable of standing on its own and in fact takes the
rider within walking distance of NO real "places" other than the zoo,
the airport, and downtown (reachable much faster by bus for most
SE/N/NE/NW residents).

Sure, if by ``bus'' you mean the SOV that's sitting in their
driveways. If you are referring to the omnibusses that Tri-Met
operates, my personal experience says you're wrong -- the only
corridors that a Tri-Met bus could beat the speed of the trolleys on
were so pathetically patronised so that they could only justify hour
headways except for 45 minute rush-hour windows.

Post by wrob
That is an in-system transfer. The Eastside N/S and suburb-suburb
routes, on the other hand, connect most NE/SE residents to MAX are
extremely poor and inefficient, depositing people on overpasses at
the freeway that are 90 degrees away from the path to their jobs.

Really? On the part of the eastside where the interurban follows
the highway, I count 4 N/S routes (70,75,71,72), of which 2 of them
meet the trains at transit centers (70:Rose Quarter; 75:Hollywood)
and two meet the trains on overpasses (71,72 -- and I've never
gotten off a train at 82nd so I can't be sure about the 72.)

Post by wrob
As long as MAX does not connect every transit center to every
other transit center, with no forced transfers, it is not an
alternative to the existing bus SYSTEM.

That's because it's (a cheaper) part of the existing bus SYSTEM.

Post by wrob
Were
it not for cannibalizing bus riders a line to the Airport,

You don't know what you're talking about. The bus line to the
airport had *terrible* patronage, and it wasn't any faster than the
trolleys are. I guess the horrible agony of having to transfer
from a #12 to the Airport line is responsible for the airport
boardings going up from the original all-bus-all-the-time routing.

____
david parsons \bi/ Sheesh.
\/

[wrob]

Post by david parsons

Post by wrob

Post by Baxter
Your problem is that you're thinking "bus system" when you should be
thinking "transportation system".

Bullshit. A light rail "system" should be able to stand on its own.

That's, um, a philosophy I've never heard of before. So you're
saying that unless you can get everywhere you want by train, there's
no point in running trains?

NO, I am sating that unless you can get everywhere you want by train
(as you can here in DC) there's no point in canceling or rerouting
BUS service. And in a system as slow as MAX there should be NO forced
transfers from bus-rail. Even in the exurban bus divisions that
currently rely on forced transfers to rail or express bus at remote TC's
(Milwaukie, Vancouver, Sunset, Gateway) there should be an express bus
alternative that covers the major routes beyond those bus divisions at
rush hour.

Even here in DC, where the train IS a successful, stand-alone system,
and much faster than MAX, bus transfers are considered inefficient and
forced transfers to Metrorail decimated the bus system even as Metro
ridership built up. Bus-rail transfers are still a pain outside of
a few HUGE bottlenecks where they can funnel up to a hundred different
bus lines, such as the Pentagon where 99 bus lines used to go across
the river, at least giving you your choice of which bus to take.
Even so, there are many folks in VA who wished those bus lines
still went over the bridge, and bus riders across our area fight
tooth-and-nail to prevent forced transfers. It has not hurt
rail ridership one bit.

Post by david parsons
Would that also apply to commuter rail
systems (in most cases, the commuter rail is roughly duplicated by
bus service, so [assuming infinite time] you can easily get to and
from work by taking several busses), elevated systems, and busses?

I don't believe in the utility of "commuter rail". I believe in
Regional Rail, Corridor Rail or Metropolitan Rapid Rail, in which
you have a mix of park and ride stops, densely developed corridor
stops, major transportation centers, and downtown areas strung out
in a multiplexed network of trains. Choose your mode, streetcars
(replace the bus lines on which they run, but not other bus lines);
rapid light rail; ALRT/Metrorail; or even Seattle monorail (which in
route & design is simply the latest incarnation of an old-fashioned el).

The intent of such systems is not to detract from point-to-point bus
ridership, but to complement it. People in Manhattan who ride the bus
everyday illustrate the ultimate utility of bus and rail operating in
parallel, not in sequence.

Post by david parsons

Post by wrob
When I go to a destination served by Metro, I do not want to have to
transfer to a bus when I get to the other end of my trip.

Good for you. Consider yourself fortunate that you can do a
single-seat commute without resorting to using a SOV. I believe you
are a minority (In my life, I've only had one job where I had a
single-seat commute by mass transit, and that involved a 3/4th mile
walk at the job end [not a particularly pleasant experience in the
upper midwest during the height of winter]; I've had EL-bus
transfers [or El-EL, if I didn't mind spending another 20 minutes in
transit], bus-bus transfers [including one in Portland with a 45-e
minute layover in downtown Portland waiting for the {usually empty
except for me} bus that dropped me off 1/2 mile from work. That one
got old very fast and I had reverted to SOVs exclusively before
Tri-Met opened their Hillsboro interurban], bus-trolley-bus
transfers [the route that replaced the previous bus-bus transfer.
It was as fast and carried significantly more riders on the last
two legs of the trip], and several airplane-bus transfers.

All of which goes to show the undesirability of forced transfers.
Downtown or peripheral central transfer points for the bus system
are much preferable to forced transfers to light rail to GET to
your actual transfer to the bus you need to get to work! And with
the LRT being so slow, its only value lies in its potential ubiquity,
IOW there's no excuse for not having light rail serve every major
transit center in a city like Portland and then some. That does not
mean as an alternative to bus service, but as a new additional service!

Post by david parsons

Post by wrob
Since MAX is incapable of standing on its own and in fact takes the
rider within walking distance of NO real "places" other than the zoo,
the airport, and downtown (reachable much faster by bus for most
SE/N/NE/NW residents).

Sure, if by ``bus'' you mean the SOV that's sitting in their
driveways. If you are referring to the omnibusses that Tri-Met
operates, my personal experience says you're wrong -- the only
corridors that a Tri-Met bus could beat the speed of the trolleys on
were so pathetically patronised so that they could only justify hour
headways except for 45 minute rush-hour windows.

We have to look at the corridors served by MAX and buses at the same
time. The fact is that MAX's speed on the straightaways is cut down
when you reach the peripheral downtown area (Goose Hollow-Lloyd Center).

The purpose of MAX should be to serve trips within those points, and
similar trips between newly-developed "downtown concentrations"
elsewhere along the line, not to provide a forced transfer for the
existing bus routes on which MAX does not run. Consider for instance
that the Interstate MAX will run less frequently, with fewer stops,
than the bus line it's replacing, and yet it will doubtless cut short
a number of North Portland bus lines to feed into it, with many or most
seats being taken up by Vancouver riders due to cross-river bus cutbacks.
MAX should connect points of development IN its corridor to similar points
IN the east-west corridor, not serve as a feeder system for folks that
don't live within walking distance of the route. It's too slow for that.
If MAX were a bus, it would be an undesirable forced transfer from another
bus, even if MAX ran slightly faster than the other bus lines.

Post by david parsons

Post by wrob
As long as MAX does not connect every transit center to every
other transit center, with no forced transfers, it is not an
alternative to the existing bus SYSTEM.

That's because it's (a cheaper) part of the existing bus SYSTEM.

No, it's a complement to the existing bus SYSTEM. Saying it's a
part of the existing bus system implies a zero sum game, that the
transportation network cannot be expanded through a process of overlay.
It's like saying that highways are a cheaper part of the existing
system of roads, and hence existing streets can be highwayized with
no loss of utility to road users (think pedestrians). Transit modes
ought to be overlaid on one another, not short-turn or cancel each
other out.

Post by david parsons

Post by wrob
Were it not for cannibalizing bus riders a line to the Airport,

You don't know what you're talking about. The bus line to the
airport had *terrible* patronage, and it wasn't any faster than the
trolleys are. I guess the horrible agony of having to transfer
from a #12 to the Airport line is responsible for the airport
boardings going up from the original all-bus-all-the-time routing.

Did I say the bus line was better? No, I simply said that the MAX line
replaced the bus line without offering much additional utility, so
it cannot be considered a contribution to building a real network,
since it's a dead-end spur with a single destination. Should buses
on e.g. Sandy or 205 be cut back because of it? No they should not,
which is the entirety of my original point.

-BER

[PC]

Post by wrob
NO, I am sating that unless you can get everywhere you want by train
(as you can here in DC) there's no point in canceling or rerouting
BUS service. And in a system as slow as MAX there should be NO forced
transfers from bus-rail. Even in the exurban bus divisions that
currently rely on forced transfers to rail or express bus at remote TC's
(Milwaukie, Vancouver, Sunset, Gateway) there should be an express bus
alternative that covers the major routes beyond those bus divisions at
rush hour.

So you want an express bus from everywhere to everywhere now? Or just
from downtown?

I thought you yanks were well aware that downtowns aren't the be all
and end all of travel patterns or PT usage.. (Unless your systems are
really poorly designed and only serve downtown travel, which I guess
is also a possibility)

Express bus services are horrendously expensive to operate due to the
massive amount of traffic they crawl through, the excessive empty
running (requiring one driver per vehicle, coupling ain't possible)
and the fact that you're not likely to have much use for those buses
outside peak hour, meaning you pay $200k for a vehicle that makes four
runs a day (two return runs), two of which may get a decent loading,
two of which will be essentially empty.

That's no way to run a network..

Post by wrob
The intent of such systems is not to detract from point-to-point bus
ridership, but to complement it. People in Manhattan who ride the bus
everyday illustrate the ultimate utility of bus and rail operating in
parallel, not in sequence.

Great, so in a few really dense cities, it might be viable..

Post by wrob
All of which goes to show the undesirability of forced transfers.
Downtown or peripheral central transfer points for the bus system
are much preferable to forced transfers to light rail to GET to
your actual transfer to the bus you need to get to work! And with
the LRT being so slow, its only value lies in its potential ubiquity,

Considered advocating speeding up the LRT?

We've got a series of about 200 "red spot" projects in Melbourne
happening now that will do exactly that.. They just fixed up the
northern end of my local tram route, and I think about 80 other spots
on the network (about 200km (125mi) of double track, mostly on-street
running, and most of that is in mixed traffic) have been completed so
far..

It would be nice if they knocked a few minutes out of the timetables
too so that early running doesn't cause services to sit at timing
points for several minutes, but I guess that will happen as they
finish each route..


PC
Melbourne, Australia

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by wrob

Post by david parsons

Post by wrob

Post by Baxter
Your problem is that you're thinking "bus system" when you should be
thinking "transportation system".

Bullshit. A light rail "system" should be able to stand on its own.

That's, um, a philosophy I've never heard of before. So you're
saying that unless you can get everywhere you want by train, there's
no point in running trains?

NO, I am sating that unless you can get everywhere you want by train
(as you can here in DC) there's no point in canceling or rerouting
BUS service.

There's no reason to run a bus parallel to the train route.

[wrob]

Post by Baxter
There's no reason to run a bus parallel to the train route.

More to the point, I guess there's no reason to run a bus
parallel to another bus route, if that bus runs at least
once every 15 minutes and is articulated. Better yet, if
you have a single bus line that runs on a line-haul basis,
cut all the other bus lines short and force the riders onto
the line-haul bus, even if it's already full of people who
live and work along the line.

Replace a particularly inefficient and bottled-up bus service
with rail, to be sure, such as west hills-downtown or Airport,
but the advantage is due to grade separation, not inherent rail
superiority. An express bus in HOV lanes would accomplish the
exact same upgrade, in which case the local service would still
have to be preserved. I assume no cutbacks were made to the
Sandy Boulevard line, for instance, simply because a 15 minute
express shuttle-on-rails opened up to the Airport (and only the
Airport)!

-BER

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by wrob

Post by Baxter
There's no reason to run a bus parallel to the train route.

More to the point, I guess there's no reason to run a bus
parallel to another bus route, if that bus runs at least
once every 15 minutes and is articulated. Better yet, if
you have a single bus line that runs on a line-haul basis,
cut all the other bus lines short and force the riders onto
the line-haul bus, even if it's already full of people who
live and work along the line.
Replace a particularly inefficient and bottled-up bus service
with rail, to be sure, such as west hills-downtown or Airport,
but the advantage is due to grade separation, not inherent rail
superiority. An express bus in HOV lanes would accomplish the
exact same upgrade, in which case the local service would still
have to be preserved. I assume no cutbacks were made to the
Sandy Boulevard line, for instance, simply because a 15 minute
express shuttle-on-rails opened up to the Airport (and only the
Airport)!

Such a font of mis-information! The AirportMAX has a number of other stops
between Gateway and the Airport - and all but one is currently being used.
That one that's not being used is because of the lack of development that BT
claims is such a 'sweetheart deal' for Bechtel.

[Hank Fung]

Post by Baxter
Such a font of mis-information! The AirportMAX has a number of other stops
between Gateway and the Airport - and all but one is currently being used.
That one that's not being used is because of the lack of development that BT
claims is such a 'sweetheart deal' for Bechtel.

A "number"? There are exactly THREE stops between Gateway and the Airport.

What does Mt. Hood Ave. serve? The non-built Cascades Station.
Parkrose/Sumner is a hostile mid-freeway station in a low density
neighborhood with nothing save the Travelodge, and a few buses, nearby.

[Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell]

Dateline: pdx.general, 22 Jul 2003 22:35:09 -0700.

As for Interstate MAX, I think that if it gets to WA, they
should possibly have it stop less and bring back the #5 for the nearby
residents.

I don't agree with TriMet's plans on replacing the #5 Interstate route
to Vancouver. I think they've decided yet, but the option they seem
want to do (http://www.trimet.org/max/yellowline/busstops.htm) is run
the #6 MLK bus up to the Expo Center, and a shuttle bus between
Vanport TC and Vancouver.

I don't see why they can't keep route #5 on as an "express" type bus
that runs the same 15-minute service (or drop it down to 30) and
travels from the downtown bus mall to I-5 or I-405 and connects up
with Vancouver as it does now. Forcing a transfer to the Interstate
MAX seems like a horrible inconvenience, and as it has been pointed
out before here, ridership drops as the transfers increase. A
2-transfer trip on the #5 bus would now become a 3-transfer trip
between the shuttle, I-MAX, and the downtown bus mall transfer to
another line.

#6 will then provide bus service to downtown if one doesn't want to
transfer again, but it doesn't really go the same places as #5 did; #6
only connects with the bus mall at Salmon and Main via the Hawthorne
Bridge before looping around 10th and the Ione Plaza building on the
PSU campus before returning to MLK/Grand Aves.

If they tick off enough Vancouverites, guess who'll be voting "no" on
the next transportation levy that'll be paying for their half of MAX
to the 'couv?

[scr]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 02:26:37 -0700, Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell

Post by Aaron 'Katt' O'Donnell
Dateline: pdx.general, 22 Jul 2003 22:35:09 -0700.

As for Interstate MAX, I think that if it gets to WA, they
should possibly have it stop less and bring back the #5 for the nearby
residents.

I don't agree with TriMet's plans on replacing the #5 Interstate route
to Vancouver. I think they've decided yet, but the option they seem
want to do (http://www.trimet.org/max/yellowline/busstops.htm) is run
the #6 MLK bus up to the Expo Center, and a shuttle bus between
Vanport TC and Vancouver.
I don't see why they can't keep route #5 on as an "express" type bus
that runs the same 15-minute service (or drop it down to 30) and
travels from the downtown bus mall to I-5 or I-405 and connects up
with Vancouver as it does now. Forcing a transfer to the Interstate
MAX seems like a horrible inconvenience, and as it has been pointed
out before here, ridership drops as the transfers increase. A
2-transfer trip on the #5 bus would now become a 3-transfer trip
between the shuttle, I-MAX, and the downtown bus mall transfer to
another line.
#6 will then provide bus service to downtown if one doesn't want to
transfer again, but it doesn't really go the same places as #5 did; #6
only connects with the bus mall at Salmon and Main via the Hawthorne
Bridge before looping around 10th and the Ione Plaza building on the
PSU campus before returning to MLK/Grand Aves.
If they tick off enough Vancouverites, guess who'll be voting "no" on
the next transportation levy that'll be paying for their half of MAX
to the 'couv?

I live in downtown Vancouver, I work for Tri-Met and I've driven the
#5. I also participated in the I-5 Partnership project that has
recommended LRT to extend to Clark County coincidently right near my
house.

The #5 is peaceful during peak but is a monster out of peak and
especially on weekends.

It's counterintuative to the folks at TM to retain bus service
parallel to a new LRT line. They perceive LRT to be a completely
positive replacement. Plus, to have the #5 continue, would expose the
LRT line to competition and bad PR.

As I mentioned in my opinion post on LRT/BRT, some passengers,
particularly the elderly, on the current #5 complain they will have to
walk many blocks more to catch a train than the 1 block either way for
the current bus service.

The neighboorhoods *did* campaign for I-MAX and it does look great,
really. It has put a healthy face on a formerly dreadful boulevard. To
be repetitive, I think it's just the wrong technology.

As for we commuters in Vancouver, if C-Tran continues the #105 express
bus during peak, I can't think of any reason why anyone that needs to
get to the transit mall downtown PDX would opt to use I-MAX once
they've tried it. There may be folks that would prefer a direct route
to the Rose Quarter which C-Tran doesn't serve.

The current #105 takes 14 minutes from downtown Vanc to the south end
(PSU) of the PDX transit mall and 16 minutes to the heart of town. It
is victim to traffic though.

I-MAX is advertised to take 25 minutes from the Expo stop so maybe 23
from Delta Park where the busses will transfer. By shuttle from Vanc
to I-Max could take 40-50 minutes with the stop at the JB mall and
wait time at Delta Park.

Hmmm. let's see....possible 16 minutes versus a certain 40-50.....each
way....

I think I-MAX will move few from the I-5 corridor during peak. I *do*
think though, I-MAX will move some folks from Vanc out of peak
particularly on weekends from Delta Park to downtown like me when I
want to go to the Fox Tower for a flick. Presently, the only option is
to drive and park downtown or take the #5 which simply is not an
option for civilized humans.

Oh, and on the subject of MAX extending to Vancouver, I don't think
it'll ever happen despite the recommendation from the I-5 Partnership.
The current estimated time of construction start is 2010. Funding is
going to be a monster to build especially if it will involve a
commitment by vote from the non-progressive populace in Clark County.
The center of Clark has been shifting east-by-northeast. The folks out
in the projects don't see a benefit to them for MAX crossing out west
near the Interstate Bridge.

The LRT obsessives will snort at this but BRT will be operational in
Eugene in 2005. Once Royce Pollard (Mayor) visits it, he's going to
look around and ask why the hell are we commiting to LRT especially
when few take I-MAX during peak.

scr

[scr]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:30:53 GMT, "John Lienhart" <***@nospam.net>
wrote:

Woops, I meant SR500 out to 503 and up to Battle Ground.

scr

[wrob]

Yeah, downtown is getting healthier thanks to the destruction of the
Junky Lager brewery, the beautiful job the city did with Esther Short
Park and the construction of new apartments and storefronts. But, I
don't think the population has increased much. The growth is out east
of 164th and north in Salmon Creek.

And what measure do you or Mr. Lienhart say the downtown Vanc is getting
healthier because of the REMOVAL of industry?? To its credit, Portland
has tried to PRESERVE industry -- unsuccessfully in the case of the
Blitz-Weinhart Brewery, which is now some godforsaken ugly
low-income-housing-of-tomorrow (i.e. luxury condo lofts) that looks no
better than what it replaced.

The I-5 Partnership identified the problem of the commercial impacts
of a gridlocked I-5 corridor. Implementing dedicated transit first out
east on the 205 bridge would have little effect on the I-5 problem.
They weren't tasked with recommending fixes for traffic out east. The
real driver was all the complaints from businesses who are concerned
their business will be threatened if the congestion gets much worse;
if there isn't a plan for the next 20 years.

Exactly, so there's no real desire for traffic, just a desire for
more roads with a transit "sweetener" thrown in. VA rejected this
(and rightly so) and was hence "punished" by state-house officials
with the removal of funding already earmarked for transit projects
that had already been approved. Shows you what their agenda is:
highway robbery.

a.) A new 10 lane, hi-rise replacement bridge with two lanes for
transit.
b.) A 4 lane supplemental general purpose bridge and an additional 2
lane LRT bridge, both would be the same height as the existing
Interstate Bridge thus requiring lifts for shipping.
I think they couldn't declare the choice because most prefer the
hi-rise bridge but to meet the slope limitations of LRT(LRT can't get
traction beyond 4%, I think), the bridge would pass over Hayden Island
with a switch back pissing off the monied interests there.

Typical bait-and-switch on the part of transportation planners.
Note that the REAL monied interests have made sure that the preferred
scenario has TWICE the auto lanes of the "alternative", thus ensuring
that a rational decision based on multiple factors (i.e. a hi-rise
6-lane bridge with 2 for transit, or a low-rise 8-lane bridge combo)
cannot be made. This is the sort of unprofessional lack of stewardship
with which public monies across the country are spent on studies.

Choosing BRT would eliminate having to wait until any bridge was
built. It can run on the existing shared lanes until then.

BRT would be MORE expensive to operate, not less, so there'd
better be inordinate demand for 24/7 bus service. Besides which
there's the fact that BRT "corridors" in Vanc would be freeways.
I oppose running rapid transit infrastructure on freeways. That's
what express buses on dedicated "dumb" lanes on the freeway are for.

10 lanes would be used for 10 lanes of traffic. Does I-5 have
10 lanes of traffic in Albina? Does it have eight? If not,
you are creating a bottleneck. Even the most successful BRT's are
eventually subverted by shared auto usage, c.f. the oft-backed-up
"bus highway" on I-395 in Virginia thanx to HOV-3 conversion
(soon to be HOV-2!!) and the opening of all lanes on the bridge
to general traffic (it was free-flowing, so even BRT can't justify
hogging its own lane on a straightaway with no cross streets).
That's the thinking which more conservative BRT proponents are
counting on.

BRT, for LRT proponents, is a taste of their own medicine
(tearing down the reputation of "heavy" rapid rail systems
and projects in Seattle, SF, DC and elsewhere). It's all
a race to the bottom from the perspective of the Average Joe.

-BER

[John Lienhart]

Interesting. Vancouver is definitely sprawling north and east, but it is
also experiencing significant activity downtown. In your opinion, would
there be an interest in a crossing near the Glenn Jackson bridge? Or BRT
along either the I-5 or 205 "corridors?"
There are a lot of people that really aren't interested in a third bridge
across the Columbia until there is mass transit infrastructure in place
first.

Yeah, downtown is getting healthier thanks to the destruction of the
Junky Lager brewery, the beautiful job the city did with Esther Short
Park and the construction of new apartments and storefronts. But, I
don't think the population has increased much. The growth is out east
of 164th and north in Salmon Creek.

There's room out there to spread 'em out like butter. How is the traffic
there? Mill Plain(?) immediately west of I-205 rivals any traffic horrors
in Beaverton IMO. I'd be a little surprised if the population downtown
hasn't increased quite a bit (relatively). It seems that there must be ten
or more new large apartment buildings going up there, somewhat reminiscent
of the Pearl District but smaller.

The I-5 Partnership identified the problem of the commercial impacts
of a gridlocked I-5 corridor. Implementing dedicated transit first out
east on the 205 bridge would have little effect on the I-5 problem.
They weren't tasked with recommending fixes for traffic out east. The
real driver was all the complaints from businesses who are concerned
their business will be threatened if the congestion gets much worse;
if there isn't a plan for the next 20 years.
The Glenn Jackson Bridge was designed and built with space for transit
so there's no additional crossing needed.
The I-5 Partnership recommended (2) crossings with one to be chosen
a.) A new 10 lane, hi-rise replacement bridge with two lanes for
transit.

The question I have to ask here is where the heck do these cars, etc. go
once they are over the bridge? Does anyone think that Portland is that
eager to tear up more housing to add lanes to I-5? I'm not so sure.

b.) A 4 lane supplemental general purpose bridge and an additional 2
lane LRT bridge, both would be the same height as the existing
Interstate Bridge thus requiring lifts for shipping.
I think they couldn't declare the choice because most prefer the
hi-rise bridge but to meet the slope limitations of LRT(LRT can't get
traction beyond 4%, I think), the bridge would pass over Hayden Island
with a switch back pissing off the monied interests there.
It seems dumb to me to build a bridge in the 21st century that still
requires a lift for 35 foot sailboats.

Agreed.

What would I do? Build the 10 lane hi-rise without the constraints of
LRT and land it on Hayden Island. Build a 20/7 BRT system in Clark
crossing both at I-5 and 205 meeting at Salmon Creek and extending all
the way to La Center, Cross the county with BRT at SR 14 out to
Washougal, 4th Plain out and up to Battle Ground, SR 500 and the
Padden.
Choosing BRT would eliminate having to wait until any bridge was
built. It can run on the existing shared lanes until then.

I'll defer to your recommendation without agreeing as I haven't studied this
in any depth.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by John Lienhart

a.) A new 10 lane, hi-rise replacement bridge with two lanes for
transit.

The question I have to ask here is where the heck do these cars, etc. go
once they are over the bridge? Does anyone think that Portland is that
eager to tear up more housing to add lanes to I-5? I'm not so sure.

You raise a good point - of what use is a 10-lane bridge when the freeway
feeding it is only 6 lanes? The freeway can't be widened without tearing
out a lot of homes and businesses - for miles. Fact is, the I-205 was
supposed to solve the I-5 congestion.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems dumb to me to build a bridge in the 21st century that still
requires a lift for 35 foot sailboats.
What would I do? Build the 10 lane hi-rise without the constraints of
LRT and land it on Hayden Island.

Assuming you mean Hayden Meadows and not Hayden -Island- (Janzen Beach),
you've got a pretty big bridge to build. The problem would be coming up
with the money.

If you're really talking Hayden -Island- (Janzen Beach), then things could
get even more expensive since: a) Hayden Island is little more than an
overgrown sandbar and anchoring the new bridge would take a lot of
engineering, and b) you'd have to wreck a couple of expensive hotels (at
least) in order to build the new approaches.

Bottom line is that a new bridge would largely wipe out the commercial area
on Hayden Island (Janzen Beach). I'm not arguing for or against - I'm just
pointing out the cost.

[b***@despammed.com]

The I-5 Partnership recommended (2) crossings with one to be chosen
a.) A new 10 lane, hi-rise replacement bridge with two lanes for
transit.
b.) A 4 lane supplemental general purpose bridge and an additional 2
lane LRT bridge, both would be the same height as the existing
Interstate Bridge thus requiring lifts for shipping.

At some point in the future, someone is also going to have to face the
fact that there isn't enough railroad capacity over the river. The 10
miles of track south from Vancouver are known as the "Terrible Ten" by the
dispatchers that have to run trains over it. This is the biggest
obstruction to increasing Seattle-Portland Amtrak service: BNSF will not
accept any more trains on the line, and even now adding one or two more
trains can cause some serious congestion problems.

Dumping those rediculous 10 mph speed restrictions would be a major step
in the right direction. A long freight train passing through North
Portland junction can clog both tracks for 10 minutes or more. There are
many other little things that are problematic with the existing situation
(like the foot-wide crack that has appeared in the south pier of the
Columbia Slough bridge).

At least a few have suggested that the railroad bridge between North
Portland Junction and Vancouver needs to be replaced with a three track
bridge. I'm not entirely convinced this is 100% necessary (a simple
connector leg between Union Pacific's Columbia River line and the BNSF
bridge between Wishram and Celilo would work wonders for BNSF trains going
east from Terminal 4 and Terminal 6, as long as trackage rights for BNSF
trains through the Columbia River Gorge could be worked out).

Once some sort of overall transportation improvement plan is worked out
for the railroad lines, the determination needs to be made about what can
be done for commuter railroad service over these lines. BRT or MAX
expansion to Vancouver might be completely unnecessary if the mess can be
cleaned up enough to provide commuter railroad service. Even if the lines
can't be cleaned up at all, a new bridge might be built that includes
light rail capacity on a deck above the freight lines.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by wrob

Post by Baxter
There's no reason to run a bus parallel to the train route.

More to the point, I guess there's no reason to run a bus
parallel to another bus route, if that bus runs at least
once every 15 minutes and is articulated. Better yet, if
you have a single bus line that runs on a line-haul basis,
cut all the other bus lines short and force the riders onto
the line-haul bus, even if it's already full of people who
live and work along the line.

Just goes to show that a bus can serve a different market then a train
in the same corridor. Also the bus could make local stops so the
train could stop less.

Post by wrob
Replace a particularly inefficient and bottled-up bus service
with rail, to be sure, such as west hills-downtown or Airport,
but the advantage is due to grade separation, not inherent rail
superiority. An express bus in HOV lanes would accomplish the
exact same upgrade, in which case the local service would still
have to be preserved. I assume no cutbacks were made to the
Sandy Boulevard line, for instance, simply because a 15 minute
express shuttle-on-rails opened up to the Airport (and only the
Airport)!

The the final portion of the #12 (Sandy Blvd) that went to the airport
was cut. However, it instead now continues on Sandy all the way to
Gresham. Also, the portion in from I-205/Airport MAX crossing is now
a Frequent ("premium") Service line. Since almost no one rode #12 to
the airport, even w/o MAX going there, it was a good idea.
As for busses in HOV lanes v. light rail, I believe that if higher car
costs encouraged more people to take transit, it might work. However,
it should also be noted that light rail can carry a lot more
people/vehicle & driver. Oh, and HOV lanes can be built to allow
busses to make stops.
And the #77 acts as a great parrallel local line to Banfield MAX.
They cross 3 times, at 82nd, 42nd, and Rose Quarter (used to also at
Gateway). As for Interstate MAX, I think that if it gets to WA, they
should possibly have it stop less and bring back the #5 for the nearby
residents. They could do the same thing along Burnside and take out
3-4 stops where there are no bus connections.
The bottom line is that rail should be used for longer distance trips.

And where were you when InterstateMAX was in planning? Basically you sound
like a 'Monday Morning Quarterback".

[scr]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 07:39:25 -0700, "Baxter"
<***@baxcode.com> wrote:

Living in Vancouver.

[scr]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 07:39:25 -0700, "Baxter"
<***@baxcode.com> wrote:

I should add there was a time when I thought LRT was wonderful. When I
moved to PDX in '88, I was so impressed with MAX.

But then, I got into the business, got exposed to Tri-Met politics,
got more involved in learning about other systems (properties as they
call them @TM), and stopped being a believer and more of a thinker.

scr

[Jason McHuff]

"Baxter" <***@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:<***@corp.supernews.com>...

Will you ever listen re:the ads at the top?
...

Post by Baxter
And where were you when InterstateMAX was in planning? Basically you sound
like a 'Monday Morning Quarterback".

Sigh. I'm 19 and just getting into this stuff. However, I do plan to
try to get to my local transit agency's (Cherriots) board meeting and
give them my idea of an express bus route.

Also, I'm going to try to really push my idea of elevating MAX instead
of putting it on the transit mall.

--Jason McHuff, Salem, OR

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Baxter

Post by wrob
NO, I am sating that unless you can get everywhere you want by train
(as you can here in DC) there's no point in canceling or rerouting
BUS service.

There's no reason to run a bus parallel to the train route.

Tell that to WMATA. They are doing just that. Why? Their trains
(and feeder buses) are full. Their long-haul buses (including
parallel routes) are also full. Since they don't have much money
to go around, they're adding parallel bus service to a line where
crowding and headways have been maxed out. You will find you need
to do the exact same thing on Interstate if you develop it heavily
on the basis of 15-minute rail service.

Since each train can handle nearly 1000 passengers, we're a long way from
needing to add buses along the InterstateMAX line.

[wrob]

In an ideal world I would agree with most of your comments, HOWEVER in the
real world where even a packed bus or train does not pay 100% of the cost
of operation, how are parallel services and duplicate services going to be
paid for? DC just raised their fares, MARC just raised their fares
because the local governments were unwilling or unable to subsidize the
services at a higher rate...

If Portland can't afford new service, they shouldn't be proposing to BUILD
new service. Put it another way. At a time when they are closing libraries
and shutting down schools in Oregon, Portland is proposing to SPEND HUGE GOBS
OF MONEY to effect the REMOVAL of bus service. This is cited as an "efficiency
improvement". I've noticed that Republican administrations love to spend money
in times of fiscal crisis by justifying it to their constituents on the grounds
that it'll take food out of the mouth of some other, hated, wasteful government
subsidy, like, say, the bus system, and give it over to a more "efficient"
service that benefits the private sector more.

DC is doing the same thing: proposing to build a waterfront streetcar from
Georgetown to Bolling AFB (you read that right) and also proposing to eliminate
WMATA's capital projects engineering division (more or less permanently) at the
very same time. They're also eliminating hospitals and homeless shelters.

We will always have to spend money to have a bus system. The lesson of DC is
you have to spend MORE money on the bus system in order for it to literally
compete with a successful rail system. In the public sector, this "competition"
is considered "inefficient" and wasteful duplication of an upper-middle-class
service and a lower-middle-class service. Guess who always wins out? But in
the private sector, it's the only way to keep the bus system viable, and the
health of the one inevitably depends on the survival of the other. More to the
point: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

the operators of the buses and light rail expect paychecks, the
mechanics who keep em safely operating expect paychecks, the cleaners that
are never fully appreciated expect paychecks, the head office staff expect
paychecks, the information operators expect paychecks, heck if you work
you expect a paycheck I would suspect....where is the money to pay for all
these folks, not to mention the extra equipment, and people to serve them
come from?????

Where is the money to pay for the miles of new rail????? Money is fungible.
Don't make an investment if you aren't prepared to pay for it. What you're
saying sounds like alot of industry assumptions, e.g. a new shopping mall --
"well, naturally, if we build this shopping mall, that older shopping area
will be killed off, so let's plan for it by disinvesting in the older
shopping area, because it's harder to get to, whereas our new mall is
bright and shiny so nobody will mind the difference." In other words,
don't build a rail line if you DON'T have EXTRA money to pay for it --
not money cannibalized from "cost savings" (i.e. cutbacks) applied to an
award-winning bus system. Forced transfers and shuttleization of buses
are a cutback, an increase in efficiency that results in decreased utility.

as a planner I would love to have a vehicle every minute on every route
24 hrs a day and a route on every street, thats not realistic, how do you
make your desires (and I use the same transit system you do, often) work
in the reality of the WMATA compact and the budget deficiets and anti
transit atmosphere of Maryland and the total emnity of the government in
Richmond to transit..how do you fund this dream of yours?????

Well, first off I was mostly referring to Portland, since DC already has
a stand-alone rail network, whereas "Baxter" was arguing that the MAX in
Portland should not be able to stand on its own, separate from the bus
system. In which case my original point, about how the "efficiency improvements"
needed to make MAX reliant on the bus system would drag down the bus system,
thus ultimately reducing overall potential ridership, is a fair one.

In the case of DC, you are right that we don't have much money to improve
the bus system, but the Metrorail-oriented, hub and spoke system in Maryland
has been uniformly inefficient for riders in the last 25 years, so there's no
rush to go out and change it in times of fiscal crisis.

In Virginia, however, a stand-alone express-local bus system is in
place, and is doing quite well with more than adequate connection
to Metrorail stations along the way, present and future. The crucial
point is "along the way".

In DC, the bus system is also stand-alone and follows the old trolley
network, to the point where Anacostia routes that got scaled back due
to the Green Line (this is a major river crossing, remember) still
cross the Anacostia river for the most part, AND were discounted to 75 cents
to account for the cost of the (mostly non-forced) Metro transfer.

-Brian R.

[david parsons]

It was an analogy, you idiot. Put another way, Oregon is running out of
money. The local matching funds for rail could be best spent on something
else.

The bulk of the local matching funds for /N have already been
spent[1] on the airport branch and the downtown streetcar line.
And a good part of the funding for the downtown streetcar
line came from special taxes that the surrounding businesses
votes on to build the streetcar line, so it's kind of ridiculous
to assume that money could be magically diverted to other
purposes without certain electoral consequences.


____
david parsons \bi/ [1: and were spent before the economy cratered]
\/