» Bridge connecting Oregon and Washington planned for construction start in 2012, with light rail link included. But its new road capacity isn’t needed.

In most cities, this debate would have ended years ago, and the results would have been far less pretty. The governors of both states involved are highly supportive of the freeway project, and they’ve unearthed enough financing to pay for it. With state departments of transportation pledging their involvement and money, there wouldn’t been much of margin for substantial change.

Yet the Interstate 5 Columbia River Crossing has been plagued by delays primarily because Portland prides itself on being one of the most ecologically aware North American cities, and therefore one of the least inclined support increased freeway capacity. Something had to be done — the existing bridge is structurally unsound and congested at rush hours — but in this region, the only way to garner support was to ensure the inclusion of a public transit component and reduce the number of traffic lanes.

So the $3.6 billion bridge currently being advocated by both governors and the local trade unions will include ten lanes of traffic (rather than 12) and a new light rail line (rather than buses, as originally suggested) when it opens for service in 2018. It would be a trade-off transit activists in most cities would accept as a grand compromise.

The Columbia River Crossing replacement project has been in planning for decades as an essential reinforcement of the primary road link between Portland and Vancouver. The $829 million light rail project is part of Portland’s planned large transit network expansion and recently received a “medium” rating from the Federal Transit Administration, allowing it to move ahead with federal funding. There has recently been a dramatic change of heart in favor of rail on the part of Vancouver’s leadership, who represent a population that defeated a transit extension from Portland in a referendum fifteen years ago.

But much of the Portland region’s citizenry remains concerned about the construction and future effects of the new bridge, and rightly so. Does the I-5 corridor need more road capacity? How can the cities be sure that the project will reduce congestion, rather than induce more demand?

Portland Mayor Sam Adams and Vancouver Mayor Tim Leavitt sent a letter last month to their respective governors asking for the project to be run by local authorities, rather than by the state highway department. Each has asked for fundamental changes to the project, which may include reducing the number of traffic lanes and eliminating planned toll lanes to be used to pay back the cost of the bridge over the long term. They want to prevent the project from becoming a financial nightmare — a possibility considering the debt each state will take on to pay for the scheme.

On the other hand, neither municipal leader is a full-on bridge opponent, nor is either interested in restarting the project entirely.

But grassroots opposition continues unabated. A number of local groups have demonstrated some of the principal flaws of the proposal: It will increase sprawl by encouraging faster and longer commutes into downtown Portland; it will reduce congestion for a period of just 12 years, after which traffic will slow down again because more people will choose to drive at rush hours because of increased capacity; it will enable a 34% increase in automobile traffic, exactly the opposite of what a self-proclaimed environmentally friendly region would want; and, if it’s tolled, as planned, it will simply encourage the greater use and eventual congestion of I-205, which runs parallel to I-5 just up down the river.

The Crossing’s environmental impact study claims that overall traffic on the corridor would actually fall with the completion of the bigger bridge — a bizarre outcome predicted by an evidently skewed traffic forecasting model. Experience across the United States over a period of decades has demonstrated concretely that more highways almost universally produce more roadway use.

The expansion of the Columbia River Crossing also fails to address traffic choke points elsewhere along I-5, meaning that congestion will simply move to other parts of the roadway, not actually solving many existing problems with the highway’s capacity.

A series of excellent videos produced several months ago by Nick Falbo promote a series of alternatives to the multi-billion dollar project. By ramping up transit options and enforcing congestion pricing on the existing bridge, the states could limit traffic while also encouraging a modal split to transit. A bigger, faster-flowing highway as currently envisioned would actually be a disincentive to the use of transit, no matter how nice the light rail line is. The bridge, though currently structurally deficient, could be reinforced and last decades more without a problem — at a far cheaper price.

What no one seems to be taking seriously enough is the potential for transit to take a higher modal share of existing traffic using the bridge.

The planners at the Columbia River Crossing project conducted a study of the origins and destinations of drivers using the corridor last year, and the results are compelling — if anyone chose to take advantage of them.

Based on my understanding of the data, of the 70% of drivers using the bridge for local purposes (30% of trips are through-trips, according to the environmental impact study), a full 25% of southbound automobilists are headed downtown, where there is already excellent transit available, and to which light rail from Vancouver would run directly. Meanwhile, 27% of driver destinations are within the zip code covered by the Yellow Line light rail, the same corridor that would head into Washington state. A full 15% more are headed to destinations just east of downtown, where the Red and Blue Lines light rail corridors provide easy access.

If you were to assume that the new bridge was not built and that instead congestion pricing and the light rail extension were implemented on their own, the current 3,300 weekday transit trips over the bridge could expand exponentially. Many of the current congestion woes could be alleviated simply by transferring downtown and near-downtown-bound drivers to a different mode of transportation. If the transit component of the bridge is a given, shouldn’t it be designed to work well? How can it attract the maximum number of riders when the highway bridge just adjacent has been expanded massively?

Building a new light rail line even as you’re expanding the highway next door is no rarity in the U.S., where the road and public transportation lobbies are mutually dependent. Sadly, policies that encourage transit even as road construction continues apace do little to affect commuting habits, as has been demonstrated by Portland over the years. The city has seen little increase in transit mode share despite huge investments in new light rail lines.

Nonetheless, even if the existing plan were implemented, Portland would still be getting a far more generous project than typically results from road expansion. The degree to which a pro-transit mentality in the city has encouraged the inclusion of light rail in the project should be replicated elsewhere — road projects like this should be required to incorporate a major transit component, and that’s exactly what Oregon and Washington’s highway planners have agreed to do here. When compared to state department of transportation elsewhere, that’s something to celebrate.

Image above: Potential look of bridge, from Columbia River Crossing

» The Green Line, providing service to Clackamas County, will open Saturday.

Portland’s light rail expansion program will complete its most recent phase tomorrow, as trains on the city’s fourth line will make their way from downtown to Clackamas County along a right-of-way paralleling I-205. The 8.3-mile Green Line is expected to serve more than 40,000 riders by 2025 and required $575 million to build over two and a half years. Yet, despite excitement over Portland’s continued investment in rail transit, the Green Line’s route is imperfect, stuck on the side of a freeway and poorly linked to the denser areas adjacent to its route. Its completion illustrates the constraints that funding and history put on local transit advocates and their resulting decision to align a major capital investment along a less-than-appropriate corridor.

In the 1970s, activists in the Portland area put a stop to the Mount Hood Freeway, which would have cut a gash through several neighborhoods in the southeast portions of the city. In response, the state chose to reorient funds towards the first MAX light rail line, which ran from downtown to Gresham. At the same time, highway opponents east Portland and in Clackamas County fought against the proposed north-south I-205. Though they lost their fight, they received in concession space for a transitway along the side and median of the road, completely separated from automobile traffic.

A light rail line from Clackamas to Vancouver, Washington was planned as far back as the early 1980s, but it was repeatedly knocked down by voters before the Green Line was eventually approved for federal New Starts funding in 2007. The new route follows the existing Red and Blue Lines right-of-way between downtown and Gateway Transit Center, where it turns south onto the new I-205 corridor.

When it opened eight years ago yesterday, the Airport-bound Red Line from Gateway Transit Center used the northern portion of the line, and the new Green Line will use the southern section for its eight new stations. By taking advantage of the pre-built highway transitway, Portland saved a bundle of money on property acquisitions and right-of-way preparation. In addition, it was able to construct a line with fast running speeds (just 39 minutes between Clackamas and downtown) because there are no road intersections along the line. Land adjacent to stops had already been cleared for new park-and-ride spaces, which total 2,300 along the route.

But the transitway is the crux of the problem with the Green Line. The highway makes an ideal right-of-way for the purpose of increasing speeds and reducing interference with surrounding neighborhoods, but it is the worst when it comes to spurring transit-oriented development. TOD, after all, should be the primary land use goal of any new public transportation investment, and Portland is likely to get very little of it along the Green Line. That’s because the mere presence of I-205, with its traffic, noise, and pollution, will make development adjacent to it unappealing. Worse, because the transit corridor is located on one of the side of the freeway, people will have to cross the very wide road to get to the other side. These are the same problems Dubai faces with its own just-opened rapid transit line.

Portland’s decision to undertake construction along the freeway was an easy solution to an expensive proposition. After all, much of the Red and Blue Line routes also follow highway right-of-ways, even apart from the airport link aforementioned. But the region’s most emblematic TODs, including the famed Orenco Station, are on the west side of the city, where light rail runs in its own corridor, unencumbered by nearby roads. This should have been the example to follow.

Yet the need to reduce construction costs and the fact that the transitway already existed made it nearly impossible for transit agency TriMet to select a different routing before engineering began in 2005. That said, there was a promising alternative just a half a mile west of I-205: Southeast 82nd Avenue, which has a very wide right-of-way for an urban street and hundreds of commercial outfits bordering it. A priori, it would have been the best corridor to choose because of its potential to spur renewal in the communities alongside it; Portland’s planned Powell Boulevard line does have the potential to do as much, but the I-205 project does not. It is ironic, then, that as far back as 2005, Clackamas County envisioned the Green Line as a way redevelop SE 82nd Avenue — so why not build the light rail line directly on it rather than half a mile away?

Perhaps TriMet planners looked to the Interstate MAX Yellow Line and saw something less than ideal: though the line runs in the median of an urban boulevard, it has not spurred much reinvestment, and though perhaps it is no worse looking than a typical six-lane road, the rebuilt Interstate Boulevard is not aesthetically pleasing either. For all the acclaim planners give the city for its light rail, Portland has yet to design a light rail project whose construction can truly beautify the surrounding areas, a la Tramway Line 3 in Paris. The appeal of an 82nd Avenue route was probably diminished as a result of that precedent.

It is indicative of the way users will use the service that companies near the route are already planning vanpools to carry their workers from stations to business locations, rather than encouraging them to make the walk. The large number of parking locations along the line similarly suggests that this will be a route geared to the driver, rather than to the pedestrian. That’s a pity, because it will mean ultimately lower ridership than what could have been attracted with a project geared to induce dense, urban-level growth. The Green Line will encourage people in the surrounding neighborhoods to choose transit for downtown- or airport-oriented commutes, but not much else, as demonstrated by TriMet itself in its decision to run trains only every 30 minutes after 6 pm.

The project’s major positive benefits in terms of land use will come at the region’s core, where the Transit Mall has been rebuilt for $220 million, allowing for a doubling of dowotnw light rail capacity and direct access to the largest destination in the TriMet service area, Portland State University. The Transit Mall is a series of bus and train-only corridors running roughly north-south on 5th and 6th Avenues downtown, complementing the Red and Blue light rail lines that run roughly east-west on Yamhill and Morrison Streets. Yellow Line trains began running in the Transit Mall on August 30th. Unlike along the I-205 segment, light rail in the Mall will increase the density and transit-oriented nature of the inner city core, which is also to benefit from a major streetcar expansion in the coming years.

Image above: MAX Green Line map, from TriMet

Second line to Gresham and new path to Sherwood would extend city’s high-capacity network.

Portland’s Metro regional planning authority has picked two corridors for future major transit investments, plotting the region’s path towards better public transportation. The new routes would extend east and southwest from downtown and will be developed consecutively after the completion of projects already in the engineering stage today. Metro also selected a number of other corridors for long-term consideration.

Along with the I-205 Green Line light rail scheduled for opening on September 12, the Portland region is currently planning a new light rail line south to Milwaukie, another north to Vancouver (WA), and a streetcar extension south to Lake Oswego. These projects, already being readied for the New Start funding process, will be the first completed.

Metro’s new plans confirm that new routes between downtown and Gresham along Powell Boulevard and another between downtown and Sherwood via Tigard along Barbur Boulevard and Highway 99 will be the next to enter engineering. These routes were chosen after a close analysis of 18 possible corridors in the region and were determined to be the most cost-effective in terms of attracting ridership. Unlike the routes mentioned above, however, these lines have yet to be guaranteed funding. They also could theoretically be built as bus rapid transit, but Portland’s success thus far with light rail indicates that the city will continue investing in the latter mode.

The plan also argues for future consideration of other corridors in the southern and western parts of the region, though those projects are a long ways off.

Portland’s pursuit of advanced planning for its light rail program fits well with the city’s strict adherence to the Oregon-mandated urban growth boundary, which ensures that the countryside remains rural, rather than becoming exurban. Strong transportation investments in the right areas can allow for future growth in dense, infill neighborhoods and prevent suburban sprawl. The city’s streetcar expansion project follows a similar vein of thought.

The city and region could be doing a better job making that infill happen, however, and one hopes that the new lines will be the setting for a significant densification of the existing urban fabric. Though light rail has brought intense development to downtown and a few isolated spots along the routes, it hasn’t been enough of a game-changer to reorient the auto-centered lifestyle that’s still present in much of the area. Part of the problem is that many of the light rail routes — including the soon-to-open Green Line — are located adjacent to or in the median of grade-separated highways. This makes them less than ideal places for transit-oriented, walkable neighborhoods.

But Powell Boulevard and much of Route 99, by virtue of their tighter girth, are connected to the neighborhoods around them, unlike I-205, for instance. It’s easy to imagine them transformed into urban boulevards, with four and five-story buildings facing the street and commercial districts situated around light rail stations. As downtown reaches its developmental limits, these corridors could become extensions of that core, adding a bit of mixed-use urbanity to neighborhood around the whole region.

Image above: Portland metro long-term plan, from OPB

This week, Portland released its draft Streetcar System Concept Plan, which will be under public debate until mid-August; it attempts to define the city’s streetcar investments over the next fifty years (h/t Portland Transport). In all, the proposal argues for eleven new lines operating in downtown and near Gateway Transit Center for the project’s first phase, with a total 73 miles of streetcar investments in the long-term. Though the majority of these segments have yet to be funded, Portland’s proactive and unambiguously ambitious planning process suggests that it will be prepared to adapt to a less auto-dependent future.

The document was released a day after Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood came to the city to praise its transportation investments and the construction of the first American-made streetcar in 60 years by Oregon Iron Works. Mr. LaHood’s arrival coincided with the commencement of construction on the city’s Eastside Extension Project, which will connect the existing streetcar line with a 3.5-mile new corridor on the east side of the Willamette River.

As outlined by this document, the first “Concept” phase of Portland’s program for streetcar expansion will focus on downtown, from which 10 new routes will radiate; an eleventh route would loop around Gateway Transit Center, where Red, Blue, and Green line MAX light rail trains will intersect once the latter corridor opens in September. These specific routes were chosen after a rigorous effectiveness comparison among dozens of potential routes throughout the city. The city hopes to raise funds for each line and pursue land use planning objectives that will encourage increased density alongside streetcar stops.

Today’s streetcar loop runs 4.1 miles roughly north-south through downtown. Currently programed routes — established prior to the publication of the city’s Concept Plan — include the 3.5-mile Eastside Extension, a 6-mile corridor from downtown south to Lake Oswego, and a 1.3-mile connection between the South Waterfront and the eastside. The eight corridors newly introduced here would provide three new east-west corridors between downtown and the eastside, an extension of the Eastside route north on MLK Jr, and several new lines in the downtown core, in addition to the Gateway loop previously mentioned.

The second “Comprehensive” phase of the plan — shown in yellow on the map above — would extend streetcars across the city, and connect the Gateway loop to downtown.

Unlike MAX light rail, streetcar service is specifically designed to encourage dense infill growth in whole sections of the city, rather than just around stations. Similarly, while light rail is successful in moving long(er)-distance automobile commuters to transit, streetcars are meant to encourage auto-free living in walkable, livable neighborhoods. They’ve been especially successful thus far in encouraging density in areas served in downtown Portland today, so there’s no reason to suggest they wouldn’t be successful in doing the same elsewhere as the system expands.

Portland’s main objectives for MAX expansion have focused on extending radially from downtown to serve “suburban” commuters coming in to work downtown. Conversely, the first phase streetcar proposal, rightfully, focuses on attracting growth to inner city areas. The expansion of the streetcar system, in other words, is the first step towards expanding the city’s dense core, making more and more of the city livable. Using streetcars to fulfill commuting needs at the city-wide range — something that’s suggested by the planned corridors in the second phase — seems inappropriate for this mode choice. Rather, the dense network of lines suggested for the first phase, which will simplify movement to virtually anywhere in the dense downtown core via transit, should be the model for expansion. Extending transit routes out across the landscape makes more since for faster light rail.

Image above: Existing and potential streetcar routes, from City of Portland

The 3.3-mile project, which will cost a total of $127 million, will get $75 million from the federal government. The project will be in operation in 2011. As I wrote in my previous post, this demonstrates the Obama Administration’s interest in promoting streetcar projects and developing mobility solutions that produce livable, attractive cities.

Sorry, not much else to say, just wanted to gloat.

Construction-ready project heralds new federal government interest in promoting streetcar service

Portland’s downtown streetcar has become a model for using transit to encourage dense development in the inner areas of an American city. Recently, the city has begun planning for the extension of the service across the Willamette River to the east side of the city, allowing streetcars to make a full loop around the city center. The total 3.3-mile project cost is $147 million, $75 million of which are expected from the federal government. Construction would begin later this year and open for service in Fall 2011.

At a press conference last week, Ray LaHood said that “We’re really launching the livable communities program as a way to say to all Americans, ‘We want to transform transportation and get people thinking about getting out of their cars’… Streetcars are going to be a priority, certainly, as a part of livable communities… We’re going to be making some announcements about streetcars very soon,” mentioning Portland specifically as a model, and implying that he would be awarding some of the stimulus fund’s $750 million for New Starts projects to the streetcar loop project. He’ll announce his decision about the project later this week.

LaHood’s comments represent a significant change from the policy statements of Bush Administration DOT Secretary Mary Peters, who repeatedly shunned streetcar projects in favor of proposals for bus rapid transit lines. They demonstrate that the FTA will be taking the lead in encouraging streetcar projects in cities that are excited to build them, but incapable at the moment to fund them. And they show a real interest in pushing city livability through transit enhancements, rather than simply using a cost-effectiveness calculation to “show” that BRT is cheaper and therefore “better.”

A good day for livable city and streetcar advocates.

Image above: Portland Streetcar Loop Plan, from Portland Streetcar

Portland-Milwaukie light rail approved to begin preliminary engineering

The Oregonian reports that Portland’s next light rail line – to be its fifth – has been approved for preliminary engineering by the Federal Transit Administration. The Portland-Milwaukie Line (Orange Line) will run north-south between the two cities. The approval does not guarantee essential New Start federal funding for the line, but it does promise federal money for planning and a likely future contract. The line has received $250 million thus far from the state legislature, which combined with expected federal money and local tax revenues, will cover the cost of the line. However, Portland’s transit agency, Tri-Met, has not yet found the operating funds for the project. The agency is currently planning significant service reductions because of a recent loss in sales tax revenues.

The 7.3-mile line will run from downtown Portland to Park Avenue in Milwaukie, with 10 intermediate stops, including along Portland’s rapidly developing south waterfront. If the construction timeline holds steady, the $1.4 billion project will be completed by 2015. The system is expected to carry almost 30,000 riders daily by 2030. The downtown segment of the route will be shared with the Green Line LRT currently under construction and sit along the Portland Mall. In addition, the line’s bridge over the Willamette River will be shared with a future streetcar loop, currently being planned.

Considering Portland’s breathtaking success in getting its light rail projects built, there’s little reason to believe that the city won’t be able to secure money from Washington to complete this line. What’s particularly exciting about the project is that unlike the soon-to-open Green Line, as well as much of the routes of the older Red and Blue Lines, this Orange Line will not operate in a freeway median. As a result, there will be significantly more opportunities for transit-oriented development in the areas around the line’s stations. Like the streetcar, then, this line may act as a generator for a number of not-so-dense neighborhoods, and not just serve to wake up a few hotstops as previous light rail lines in the city have. This promises to be the city’s best transit expansion project yet.

Image above: Plan for Portland-Milwaukie LRT, from Tri-Met

The Tri-Met WES, which is a 14.7-mile commuter rail line from Beaverton to Wilsonville in Portland’s western suburbs, will open today for its first commuters. The project allows diesel multiple unit trains to run the route in less than 30 minutes, stop at three new intermediate stations, and connect to MAX light rail service in Beaverton. What’s perhaps most exciting about the service is that it will offer free Wi-Fi in trains, something no other commuter rail service offers in the country making it the second commuter rail line in the country to offer such a service.

WES hasn’t been without its problems, however. Tri-Met had to acquire Colorado Railcar, the equipment maker, to prevent it from going belly-up before the trains had been built. And WES won’t be providing the best service in the world, either. It’s a commuter line, not designed for carefree use, and it will only run every thirty minutes between 5:30 and 10 am in the mornings and 3:30 to 7 pm in evenings, only on weekdays.

Tri-Met expects 4,600 daily riders by 2020, though with such limited service, one wonders whether or not that’s a realistic estimate.

—

BART Expects to Have Wi-Fi on Trains by 2011

WES won’t be the only system in the country (of two) with mobile internet access, however, if BART has its way. The heavy rail system serving San Francisco and the Bay Area has signed a contract with Wi-Fi Rail, Inc. to provide for wireless internet use along the entire system within three years. The company will hold the contract for 20 years.

The system is currently being tested in the downtown San Francisco stations and will work even when trains reach their maximum speeds of 80 mph. Though that service is being provided for free, eventually users will be charged to use their computers and smartphones on the trains if they want to use the internet for more than three and a half minutes (including 30 seconds of ads). Charges for subscribers will be about $6 for two hours, $9 a day, $30 a month, and $300 a year, a good deal for commuters but terrible for everyone else.

—

L.A. Gold Line Extension Almost Ready for Service

Los Angeles is just months away from the opening of its newest light rail line, the $900 million Gold Line extension from downtown’s Union Station to East L.A. The 6-mile-long project has been under construction since 2004 and includes a significant tunnel under Boyle Heights. It is to be opened for riders later this year, though a specific date has not yet been set because the project is coming in early and below budget.

Now comes news that the entire track has been completed and that a light rail train has been pushed along the system successfully. The tracks will be tested over the next several months to ensure safety for riders.

—

Milwaukee Considering whether to Invest in Streetcars or Express Buses

Milwaukee, Wisconsin’s largest city, is considering how to invest in its transit future with the Milwaukee Connector study. A series of meetings will be held this month to get citizen input in the potential improves in mass transit, which may provide service along the following corridors:

• A streetcar within downtown Milwaukee
• Bus rapid transit from downtown north to the University of Wisconsin; west to the Milwaukee County Research Park; northwest to Midtown Center; and south to the airport
• Bus rapid transit from Bayshore Town Center south along 27th Street to Northwestern Mutual Franklin Campus

The team wants to apply for a Federal Transit Administration Small Starts grant, which goes for projects worth less than $250 million, so the study will focus in on how that money could be best used. The city currently has $91 million in federal transportation dollars at its disposal and the Small Starts grant could provide another $75 million if the city’s application is successful.

But there’s some controversy about what mode of transit would best suit the city. Whereas Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker has suggested the best possible use of money would be in bus lanes, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett has campaigned for a downtown streetcar and fewer bus lines. The study will help gauge citizen interest and preferences.

Image above: WES Colorado Railcar Train, from Tri-Met

The problem is that Colorado Railcar is doing really poorly – it’s pretty much out of funds – and Tri-Met has become responsible for subsidizing it, just so it can get the four railcars that it ordered built. The more embarrassing part of the story is that Tri-Met knew that engaging in a contract with Colorado Railcar was risky business when the agency first agreed to sign on back in 2005. Over the past three years, it has handed over more than $5 million above the contract to keep the company afloat.

Just like The Overhead Wire, I’ve had concerns about Colorado Railcar for years for a variety of reasons. For one, the company has never been capable of actually producing working vehicles for any transit system – until now. Second of all, one look at a Colorado Railcar train is enough to convince you that the company isn’t in the same league as Alstom, Siemens, or Bombardier, which all produce modern-looking and good-performing vehicles. Perhaps we shouldn’t read a book by its cover, but Colorado Railcar’s trains look like they’re from the 70s.

Perhaps Tri-Met was trying to help an American business survive against dramatically better funded foreign competition. But in the process, Portland has paid more than it had to for trains that are likely to have major problems (and no manufacturer’s warranty!) in the years ahead.

—

In more encouraging news, New York City is almost ready to open its first new subway station since 1989.