Portland Transit | TriMet/Mass Transit News

[zilfondel]

Current streetcar frequencies of every 15 minutes with a normal capacity of 140 (stated manufacturer's capacity level) give it a max capacity of 560 people per direction per hour.

The reason I say that it is likely exceeding its capacity is that to reach 10,000 riders/day is that it would need over 16 hours of normal capacity to hit that level; or just over 8 hours if they are counted twice. Which sounds about right, as during normal business hours the thing appears pretty full. I know, I know, this assumes everyone is riding it end-to-end, or at least the middle portion.

Just found out that Inekon is now manufacturing a 5-section variation of the "Trio" trams that we are running. Capacity is quite a bit higher - between 200-300.


source: Inekon


On the plus side, once we've got the new prototype streetcar in service, I believe they will be able to increase frequency.

[JordanL]

Originally Posted by alexjon

You don't agree, you whine and whine, saying it's pointless because it has lower frequency than most buses. That's like me saying I'm all for freeways "if only they'd tear out a couple of lanes and put in high speed rail!!"

Don't kid yourself

Reading isn't your strong suit, is it.

Let me say it simply:

This entire time I've been advocating expanding service on the streetcar line.

More frequent service.

[RED_PDXer]

Originally Posted by zilfondel

Current streetcar frequencies of every 15 minutes with a normal capacity of 140 (stated manufacturer's capacity level) give it a max capacity of 560 people per direction per hour.

The reason I say that it is likely exceeding its capacity is that to reach 10,000 riders/day is that it would need over 16 hours of normal capacity to hit that level; or just over 8 hours if they are counted twice. Which sounds about right, as during normal business hours the thing appears pretty full. I know, I know, this assumes everyone is riding it end-to-end, or at least the middle portion.

Just found out that Inekon is now manufacturing a 5-section variation of the "Trio" trams that we are running. Capacity is quite a bit higher - between 200-300.


source: Inekon


On the plus side, once we've got the new prototype streetcar in service, I believe they will be able to increase frequency.

The "140" capacity of the streetcar is ridiculous. 5 people per square meter... in theory, yes. but throughout the entire train? I'd be very surprised if it could hold more than 100 people at a very uncomfortable closeness..

[RED_PDXer]

And for those of you that think taking a picture of a crowded train is proof we need a subway.. you are incorrect. I've been on MAX trains more crowded than that. It's not the norm. It's when the train before it was about 10 minutes or longer in front of it during peak hour, and/or it's a Blazers game day.. Additionally, it's typically only the blue line that sees that level of crowds, not the red or yellow. Solution: run trains every 6 to 8 minutes consistently. If we need better frequency, then add it. If we get below 2 minutes or so for all MAX lines through Rose Quarter, we need to redesign the east approach to the steel bridge (remove auto traffic or grade separate that intersection). If we get below a combined headway of 3 minutes or less for blue and red, then the tunnel through west hills is a problem. If we get below 2 minutes or less for the Blue, Red, and Green, then the banfield is a problem. Downtown is not the problem (except for the excess number of stations which can simply be removed). Even in those situations, "moving signal blocks" can be incorporated to reduce allowable headways between trains.

Well, I think we've discussed the issue of capacity enough.. I certainly have. Let's separate dreams from reality.. Tunnel not needed, nor affordable. Period.

[Okstate]

In response to "taking out" stops be it lightrail/streetcar to improve timing:

-Has this been done on other systems throughout the US?
-I can't imagine a stop being nixed simply b/c every stop is so vital...I mean there had to be a reason it was put there in the 1st place, right? I know planners are ultimately just regular joes but are the pros/cons really justified?

What I AM in favor of (if/when possible) is:
1) priority lanes coupled with 2) increased frequencies.
Wouldn't it be smarter to look at those options first before taking out stops?

[bvpcvm]

oh come on, of course stops can be eliminated. take 3rd/morrison and pioneer place - they're two (very short) blocks apart. put one stop on 4th and morrison and you've just whittled travel time thru downtown by 2 minutes. that's only the most egregious example. another one is king's hill - a block away from the civic stadium station. completely useless, and only added to appease the mac club. max already has "priority" lanes, in fact it has lanes reserved exclusively.

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by JordanL

Reading isn't your strong suit, is it.

Let me say it simply:

This entire time I've been advocating expanding service on the streetcar line.

More frequent service.

Go back and read "Portland Streetcar System" where you say with absolute alacrity that the streetcar won't be worth anything unless it's a commuter system, that it would never reach capacity like buses, it smells awful and so on and so forth.

Your advocacy is merely rhetorical "monkey in the middle", on one hand blasting people for supporting the current Modern Streetcar concept, which you don't understand in the slightest apparently and then covering your rear by saying, well gosh, you've been advocating common sense enhancements which means anyone who'd dare suggest you aren't supportive of the streetcar is obviously wrong.

I would prefer they expand the busses and then invest in a Powell Blvd MAX line, instead of spending money on a streetcar that will cost well over $10,000 per passenger the year if finally gets completed.

That doesn't sound like you're supportive at all.

The streetcar has very poor ventilation and windows. It gets stifling in a streetcar with less than 100 people on, let alone 140. I guarantee people would never pile in to capacity in a streetcar like they do a bus.

Busses are a lot less tourist friendly though. In that sense, streetcars make sense if they are part of a comprehensive tourism network, with accesibility and pricing geared towards tourists and the places they want to go. For that, a streetcar down Hawthorne might make sense, but Portland doesn't generate enough tourism for that the make sense to me yet.

Nor that.

Like I said, stop kidding yourself.

[Mallory2008]

Originally Posted by alexjon

"It's always full, but inadequate for the majority of people"? That's your argument? That it exceeded projected ridership and is bumping up against max peak hour capacity? And then it's too slow, you say, implying nobody should/would ride it, even though you say a second prior that it's running at capacity.

Man, you're all over the place. Let me clarify; this is a simple concept:

The capacity is too low. It doesn't matter if each car is full, if there are only 4 cars during rush hour, that's not nearly enough. It's missing a huge pool of potential riders by not having enough capacity.

Ditto the speed. If we're going to spend hundreds of millions for streetcars all over the city, it has to be a viable transit option. It's not worth it if people can walk faster. This goes to capacity as well.

I'm advocating for faster, more frequent service. What's your problem with that?

[alexjon]

Capacity is easily fixed in the interim by adding more runs at peak hours, that's a no-brainer. Speed would be an issue if nobody rode it, but that idea is negated by at-capacity runs in peak hours.

It's always nice to run them faster, but until increasing capacity requires speeding things along (versus simply slicing headways in half at peak hours), it's not worth the capital or political battle to bump up the timeline. With MAX taking pressure off (being 1,000 feet away from either direction), some crowding and some cross-downtown traffic will be eliminated, buying time. The initial Streetcar alignment, too, is set to be improved with the expansion of the network.

People act as though well-practiced planners have no clue about any of this.

[Okstate]

Originally Posted by bvpcvm

oh come on, of course stops can be eliminated. take 3rd/morrison and pioneer place - they're two (very short) blocks apart. put one stop on 4th and morrison and you've just whittled travel time thru downtown by 2 minutes. that's only the most egregious example. another one is king's hill - a block away from the civic stadium station. completely useless, and only added to appease the mac club. max already has "priority" lanes, in fact it has lanes reserved exclusively.

-I never said stops could not be eliminated. I was advocating what steps should be implemented to the fullest 1st, IMO.

-Stops close together were put there for a reason, right? I don't buy it that one private interest group entirely convinced the entire metropolitan transit authority to place a stop in their neck of the woods. If so, that is ridiculous.

-I never said Max did not have priority lanes. I just spoke in favor of transit having priority lanes. And what I didn't mention but meant to was that light rail downtown should run on its own street without dealing with auto traffic lights.

[Mallory2008]

Originally Posted by Okstate

I don't buy it that one private interest group entirely convinced the entire metropolitan transit authority to place a stop in their neck of the woods. If so, that is ridiculous.

Two words: King's Hill. And you're absolutely right.

[bvpcvm]

Originally Posted by Okstate

-I never said stops could not be eliminated. I was advocating what steps should be implemented to the fullest 1st, IMO.

well we're splitting hairs here over what you said. i'll just leave it at this: given the political will, any stop can be eliminated.

Originally Posted by Okstate

-Stops close together were put there for a reason, right? I don't buy it that one private interest group entirely convinced the entire metropolitan transit authority to place a stop in their neck of the woods. If so, that is ridiculous.

from what i understand, the kings hill station is there for precisely that reason. regarding stops along morrison/yamhill, sure they were put there for a reason, but those stations were planned in 1982 or so - when downtown and transit service were completely different. throughput of the line, east-to-west, wasn't an issue because the line only went out east to gresham. now, of course, it's a totally different situation and the reasons for putting them so close together, whatever they were, though i could speculate, are very likely now without much basis.

Originally Posted by Okstate

-I never said Max did not have priority lanes. I just spoke in favor of transit having priority lanes. And what I didn't mention but meant to was that light rail downtown should run on its own street without dealing with auto traffic lights.

ok, well, i read your post differently, but whatever. i'm not really sure what you mean, though about max having its own "street". you can't really close down all the cross-streets, obviously. the only thing i can picture is either a subway or elevated track, which is almost certainly a non-starter, given our relatively narrow streets.

[MarkDaMan]

Ugh...the MAC club. Sorry Okstate, they are right on that one. That stop serves no purpose but to appease people that probably wouldn't be caught dead riding the MAX.

Lincoln High, PGE Park and the Kings Hill district have plenty of capacity at the PGE Park/Goose Hollow stop.

Let's see...why the stop at Old Town/Chinatown AND the Saturday Market? Rose Quarter, OCC, and 7th Ave?

The MAX was first built (opened in '86) with the line going between downtown and Gresham. The Blue Line didn't continue on to Hillsboro until '98. For a long time, the several stops that slow travel didn't overly inconvenience commuters because there was no 'through' traffic. From my understanding, when the Westside line opened they didn't eliminate one downtown stop.

I think there are four, possibly five that could go.

[JordanL]

Originally Posted by alexjon

Capacity is easily fixed in the interim by adding more runs at peak hours, that's a no-brainer.

THIS IS WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING.

Add more runs at peak hours. How can you possibly not understand what I'm saying?

[Okstate]

Originally Posted by MarkDaMan

Ugh...the MAC club. Sorry Okstate, they are right on that one. That stop serves no purpose but to appease people that probably wouldn't be caught dead riding the MAX.

Let me get this straight. I want to point out that I'm not arguing this either. The MAC club put pressure on Trimet to add a stop near "them" when they in fact don't want association with public transit?

In hindsight I do agree with 1 Lloyd center stop being eliminated. I just haven't been in the mix of things as long as "you guys" have so I am slowly forming opinions about things. I also want to point out that I do enjoy being the devils advocate at times as well

-Off Topic- From the conception of Portland's light rail Gresham then Hillsboro then Airport then Expo and now Clackamas...has each successive line added done so (been constructed) in a relatively faster pace than its predecessor? In other words, in the future could be add lines much faster than currently?

[PacificNW]

Lloyd Center eliminated? Doesn't make sense too me. What is your reasoning? Not everyone drives and parks @ the mall. I can think of other stops in that vicinity to eliminate that make more sense....

[bvpcvm]

^ he means one of the stops in that area

okstate - westside blue line - 13 years after eastside, then 3 years later the red line, and 3 years after that, yellow. green in another 5 years (2009).

[zilfondel]

The MAX system definitely needs a few stops downtown and in the Lloyd District to be eliminated. It could likely save ~10 minutes, each way.

The original design documents about the MAX were for it to be like a streetcar downtown, to enhance the downtown shopping experience. Unfortunately, this tourist-centric plan clashes with how most residents actually use it - as a transportation system.

I can't stand people who are unable to walk more than two blocks to a stop, although I can't really see eliminating the Park Ave, Pioneer Place, or Pioneer Courthouse stops, even though they are so close to each other - as they each serve quite a number of riders. Especially the mall. Not to mention everyone who transfers from the streetcar onto the MAX, on their way home to Gresham, Beavertronia or Hillsboro from PSU.

Green line opens in September. Milwaukie 2015. 6 years - we're getting slow! We need that Barbur MAX asap, too - like 10 years ago.

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by JordanL

THIS IS WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING.

Add more runs at peak hours. How can you possibly not understand what I'm saying?

Maybe because that's only a single nuanced bit of dishonesty in your argument that you've seized upon in order to say "no, you supporters don't see that I'm thinking like you, even though I've repeatedly asserted we shouldn't spend money on Streetcars and yet my solution is spending money on Streetcars, which I also deem to be smelly and only suitable for tourists."

You're funny

[JordanL]

Originally Posted by alexjon

Maybe because that's only a single nuanced bit of dishonesty in your argument that you've seized upon in order to say "no, you supporters don't see that I'm thinking like you, even though I've repeatedly asserted we shouldn't spend money on Streetcars and yet my solution is spending money on Streetcars, which I also deem to be smelly and only suitable for tourists."

You're funny

Yeah, I'm supporting increasing Streetcar runs to lull you into complacency... THEN I'll... I'll... STOP SUPPORTING IT!! MUWAHAHAHAHA!!!