Pac NW Plannergeek Honeymoon | Portland 3/3: Transportation

[ue]

The Toronto streetcar thing is nuts. It really should be up to the curb.

As for Portland, I don't mean to burst your bubble, but Portland is hardly the mecca it's made out to be in transit. The only field it does extremely well in is biking. Light rail and streetcar are anywhere from okay to good. It is stunning how extensive the MAX is, yet outside of Portland proper, it didn't seem to be used a whole lot (and I have rode the MAX to Hillsboro and Gresham). While you could argue for it's size, Portland does well, but then I'd get you to look at Calgary or Vancouver per capita numbers for ridership. Still, good documentation of Portland's transit network. Portland has all the bare bones, now it just needs more people to actually use it.

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

That's insane. You leave pedestrians crossing a lane of traffic to board a streetcar on the hope that drivers follow the law and don't pass the streetcar (thus plowing through unprotected people)? Only in Canada. (And maybe ever-dutiful Minnesota.) Thanks, but I'll take the bulb-out curb. Even a center platform. Some physical protection...

How are wheelchairs accommodated in Toronto? Drop a boarding plate, I assume, and let folks roll on up? I'm asking genuinely, I've never seen it, so I'm curious.

Yes, it's insane. Yet it's worked just fine for decade after decade after decade. Outside of peak hours there will be a lane of parked cars there, with the stop usually at a corner where parked cars aren't allowed (but are allowed just off the corner so there isn't room for moving cars to veer into that lane). Keep spouting your ignornace though.

The Toronto streetcar thing is nuts. It really should be up to the curb.

Putting it at the curb would take out a lane of parked cars, which provide protection between moving cars and pedestrians on the sidewalk. It would ALSO create the problem of allowing cars to pass the streetcar when stopped, so that traffic when the streetcar starts moving after a long stop to let passengers embark/disembark, traffic is likely to be just as congested as when the streetcar stopped in the first place. That gives a competitive advantage to motorists (thus a competitive disadvantage to transit riders) relative to not allowing cars to pass the streetcar. The competitive disadvantage to using the streetcar will lead to less demand to use it, creating the situation where the service levels (headways) end up being poor (10+ minute headways even during peak hours).

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by ue

yet outside of Portland proper, MAX didn't seem to be used a whole lot

Part of what I find impressive about Portland is that they have focused the transit on the parts of the city where it's most useful. It isn't a mere shuttle for suburban commuters, but is a defining element to the central city's livability and development. That may result in a lower mode share, but I would say it results in a better city.

Not that I don't want the suburbs to be transit friendly, and to urbanize, but the fact that Portland puts a more central city focus on its transit is exactly why I like it.

Light rail is a very flexible tool, but I think a lot of cities use it wrong. Rather than trying to make it all things to all people, I'd rather more cities develop good urban-focused streetcar networks, and then supplement them with a separate commuter rail network for the suburbs.

Vancouver is a great example. SkyTrain was utterly useless to me as I explored the peninsula. Whatever high mode share it generates among commuters is fairly meaningless to the core. Portland's light rail and streetcars, on the other hand, are most definitely NOT useless in the core downtown/Pearl area.

[ue]

First, let me get something out of the way. Suburbs aren't going anywhere, at least not for the next couple decades. Yes, they are becoming less popular, but it isn't going to be a one eighty overnight. With that in mind, planners need to create suburbs that are sustainable, and transit is a pivotal part of that. So, no a city shouldn't just focus on the central city (although it is the first place a city should build light rail just because it would have the most initial demand).

Secondly, Portland doesn't really have a central city focus. The MAX and commuter rail go far into the suburbs in all directions except to Washington State. It's just that few people seem to use the MAX in the suburbs as compared to the Lloyd District or Yamhill District.

Thirdly, Vancouver is fairly well serviced by the SkyTrain on the Downtown Peninsula. The only neighbourhood on the peninsula that doesn't have direct access to it is the West End. It sucks, but the peninsula is very walkable, so it isn't hard to walk from the West End to a SkyTrain station. Not to mention this non centrally focused SkyTrain network has led to some of the best suburban planning in North America.

Lastly, two things. One: Portland exists outside of Downtown/Pearl, even urban areas of Portland, and they shouldn't be ignored. While downtown's are extremely important to cities, they are not the be all end all. I still find it pathetic Hawthorne Blvd has no MAX or streetcar. Nor does Alberta St or Downtown Vancouver, WA. Two: The SkyTrain is "useless" on the peninsula because it is such a small area. Unless you're lugging groceries back to your Yaletown condo, you can easily walk everywhere. But even still, there are buses and the Financial District, Yaletown, Granville area, and Gastown are still connected or near the SkyTrain.

P.S. one more thing: I agree with your compliments of the streetcar in Portland and am glad they're expanding this. I really hope Vancouver gets one (again) for connecting the Downtown Peninsula and Kits. Perhaps a downtown loop and then a leg down South Granville and Cambie, and turning onto Broadway. Cities like Quebec City, Winnipeg (LRT would be ideal for the 'Peg, though), Halifax, Providence, Ann Arbor, and Denver could really benefit from a Portland-style streetcar.

[vanman]

Vancouver is a great example. SkyTrain was utterly useless to me as I explored the peninsula. Whatever high mode share it generates among commuters is fairly meaningless to the core. Portland's light rail and streetcars, on the other hand, are most definitely NOT useless in the core downtown/Pearl area.

Yes this is true because skytrain wasn't built to ferry gawking tourists around, that is what the Seattle monorail is for.

[touraccuracy]

^hey now, it's a fair observation. i've always thought it crazy that the west end doesn't have anything but bus service; walking from stanley park/english bay to granville station is a bitch. hopefully our streetcar line goes through and takes the west end into account.

[giovanni sasso]

ue, it stands to reason that there's a far greater usage in the lloyd/downtown areas than the suburbs: it's free. fareless square covers a pretty sizable area, so people tend to hop on and off more casually than paying commuters from the suburbs, obviously.

but i do think the max serves the suburbs well. i work from home so i don't have a commute, but i know people who reverse commute to beaverton, and the few times i've ridden the lines that serve clackamas town center and gresham, they've been pretty packed. the yellow line currently goes to the expo center, which isn't quite downtown vancouver wash, but close -- the current i-5 bridge. if and when they ever rebuild it (which has been an ongoing debate for several years), it will have max service into vancouver. and the expansion south to milwaukie is going to crush from the start.

i agree 100% that it's stupid that hawthorne doesn't have, if nothing else, a streetcar. the 14 bus has frequent service, but who cares? as vital as hawthorne is to this part of town, i don't think it would be that difficult to build a streetcar spur from the eastside streetcar loop under construction now. the problem would be with a turnaround. a streetcar could navigate hawthorne without any trouble to 50th, but after that it's tricky, and in a residential area that i suspect would be pretty NIMBYish if it had to come any deeper into the neighborhood. which is unfortunate, because it would be amazing to have streetcar service to mount tabor park.

[ue]

You're right, I forgot about the fareless square. It's very nice and all, but I wonder how many dedicated MAX riders that make up the systems 115,000/day are just from free riders?

You are correct, MAX services Portland's suburbs well. Like I said, it goes to almost all directions, but when I used the MAX out to Gresham and Hillsboro (admittedly it wasn't rush hour, but that shouldn't matter. I should be able to evaluate the MAX based on how it normally is, not when it is typically at its busiest) there were few people as compared to Central Portland. More people on the Gresham side then Hillsboro, probably due to Gresham being poorer, but still not much.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by J. Will

Yes, it's insane. Yet it's worked just fine for decade after decade after decade. Outside of peak hours there will be a lane of parked cars there, with the stop usually at a corner where parked cars aren't allowed (but are allowed just off the corner so there isn't room for moving cars to veer into that lane). Keep spouting your ignornace though.

You could explain the situation (parked cars) without being a dick. Or accept that a solution that requires drivers to be calm and obedient might work for canucks, but never would down here. I can tell you, I would never design such a thing, never ever. Maybe it has worked for decades, sure, lot's of strange things have, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the best option today. EDIT: In fact, I can almost guarantee you that such a thing would be vetoed by our state's Public Utilities Commission, which has to approve railroad at-grade crossings, and would almost certainly get a review of something like this.

Originally Posted by ue

As for Portland, I don't mean to burst your bubble, but Portland is hardly the mecca it's made out to be in transit. The only field it does extremely well in is biking. Light rail and streetcar are anywhere from okay to good. It is stunning how extensive the MAX is, yet outside of Portland proper, it didn't seem to be used a whole lot (and I have rode the MAX to Hillsboro and Gresham). While you could argue for it's size, Portland does well, but then I'd get you to look at Calgary or Vancouver per capita numbers for ridership. Still, good documentation of Portland's transit network. Portland has all the bare bones, now it just needs more people to actually use it.

To jump into the discussion you and Cirrus are having, I think it's pretty obvious why overall usage is higher outside of the core in those cities than Portland (or any other U.S. city for that matter) - density. Not sure fi you're familiar with Denver's light rail - I know Cirrus is - and it performs in exactly the opposite way of what Cirrus is describing for Portland. It's used rather heavily in the suburbs, but hardly used it all in/around the city center. The light rail is essentially useless for folks in Denver proper. Now, I don't disagree with you - suburbs aren't going anywhere - but as for whether rail transit can make them more sustainable, I don't know. If it makes them densify, sure. But it doesn't always do that. Our system is heavily park-n-ride based... which not only doesn't really help the suburbs much (it becomes an alternative to downtown commuting, nothing more, nothing less), it also greatly limits your ridership base. In Denver, once the parking lots are full at the suburban stations, you're done, that's it, your ridership tails off from there (feeder buses are a bad solution, especially in low density areas where frequent service isn't much of an option). Given that we can't provide great rail service to low density areas, I agree with Cirrus, Portland's approach is preferable. I'd be willing to bet that the impact Portland's rail has had on center city livability had drawn more people back into the core than we will ever get riding trains from suburban TODs. At least, in moderately-sized U.S. cities.

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

You could explain the situation (parked cars) without being a dick.

And you could not be a dick with stupid and ignorant statements like "only in Canada", like your country does public transit better

Or accept that a solution that requires drivers to be calm and obedient might work for canucks, but never would down here. I can tell you, I would never design such a thing, never ever.

So because some anonymous guy on the internet wouldn't design it like that, the people who actual did design it got it wrong I guess? Let's hear your alternative, and what makes yours better than the people who actual know what they're doing, and designed a system that has worked perfectly fine for many decades.

Maybe it has worked for decades, sure, lot's of strange things have, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the best option today. EDIT: In fact, I can almost guarantee you that such a thing would be vetoed by our state's Public Utilities Commission, which has to approve railroad at-grade crossings, and would almost certainly get a review of something like this.

Colorado is so far behind Toronto when it comes to public transit it's not even funny. So that fact that your State wouldn't go for it pretty much tells me we have it right. You don't have to take my word for it either. Look at per capita ridership, level of service (density of coverage, service frequency, hours of service), or any other metric you wish to use, and Denver/Colorado compares unfavourably.

This is how a typical Toronto streetcar stop is arranged outside rush hours when streetside parking is allowed:

[Cirrus]

Bunt has engineering and planning degrees. He has direct intercontinental experience in urban management. Believe me, he's qualified to talk about this.

The mere fact that Toronto manages to make it work does not mean it is ideal. The United States manages to make sprawl work, but certainly it is not ideal. North Korea manages to make communism work. Just because it's been happening for decades doesn't mean it is the perfect solution.

The Toronto solution may work, but it so obviously not ideal that defending it as perfect is comical. It's also hugely disingenuous of you, considering how this debate started.

[giallo]

Originally Posted by J. Will

And you could not be a dick with stupid and ignorant statements like "only in Canada", like your country does public transit better

Dude, he was saying that as a compliment. Like only in Canada will people not run you down in their car even though there's no designated stop light/sign.

I've notice you're quite the combative one. Many threads throughout the years have shown this.


Cirrus, great thread. You've really sunk your teeth in to what makes Seattle and Portland tick. I can't wait for your Vancouver threads.

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Bunt has engineering and planning degrees. He has direct intercontinental experience in urban management. Believe me, he's qualified to talk about this.

The mere fact that Toronto manages to make it work does not mean it is ideal. The United States manages to make sprawl work, but certainly it is not ideal. North Korea manages to make communism work. Just because it's been happening for decades doesn't mean it is the perfect solution.

The Toronto solution may work, but it so obviously not ideal that defending it as perfect is comical. It's also hugely disingenuous of you, considering how this debate started.

a. I never defended it as "perfect". That is a lie.

b. I never brought up Toronto or even Canada in the first place. That was you. I commented on the pictures of Portland and brought up no other cities until you did. If you don't believe me, read the thread from the beginning.

And even though it may not be perfect, it's a hell of a lot better than a "solution" where cars must traverse ACROSS a streetcar lane to get in and out of a parking lane, which is what they are doing with the bulbout. Defending that "solution" is just as disingenuous.

[Ayreonaut]

Thanks for the very informative thread, Cirrus. I look forward to trying this stuff out for myself one day.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by J. Will

And even though it may not be perfect, it's a hell of a lot better than a "solution" where cars must traverse ACROSS a streetcar lane to get in and out of a parking lane, which is what they are doing with the bulbout. Defending that "solution" is just as disingenuous.

For the record, Toronto has those "bulb outs" too (on Roncesvalles).

Though, neither that nor having drivers stop in the right lane is the ideal. From both a passenger safety & traffic flow, the basic "island" works best.

[fflint]

Canadians: this thread is not about you.

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by fflint

Canadians: this thread is not about you.

Which makes it strange that Cirrus brought up Canada (post #16) in the first place. Had he not done so, nobody else would have even mentioned Canada. The thread was about Portland. I see no reason that any other examples from any other city was initially brought up. I agree, the discussion should have stayed on Portland without comparisons to anywhere else.

[Cirrus]

Other cities were brought up because you demanded to see an example that's less ideal than Portland. You were upset that I gave credit to Portland for doing something that you claimed everyone does. I obliged and showed you a clearly inferior design, and you flipped.

I think it's clear why you're upset. I'm crediting Portland with something you think your city of choice does better. And that's why people are saying it's not about you.

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Other cities were brought up because you demanded to see an example that's less ideal than Portland.

I absolutely did not. In which post specifically did I "demand" to see an example from another city? Tell me the post and the quote please. This statement you're making about me demanding to see examples from other cities is not true. You brought up Toronto, and I responded to it. I would not have mentioned how any other city works had you not brought it up.

You were upset that I gave credit to Portland for doing something that you claimed everyone does. I obliged and showed you a clearly inferior design, and you flipped.

No, this is a lie. I DID claim that everybody does have a design where streetcars do not switch back and forth between lanes around stops, which is true. I was NOT "upset" that you gave Portland credit for doing anything. That is not true. It is also a lie that I "flipped" when you showed me what you claim to be an inferior design (which is actually not). Had I "flipped" I would have resorted to cursing and personal attacks, which I did not. Disagreeing with you is not "flipping". It is just disagreeing with you. I'm surprised you cannot differentiate between the two.

I think it's clear why you're upset. I'm crediting Portland with something you think your city of choice does better. And that's why people are saying it's not about you.

I'm disagreeing with you. It is a lie that I am "upset". I think Portland's model is inferior, and I've explained why. You're entitled to disagree. I don't claim you've "flipped" when you disagree with my opinion though, so you shouldn't say I've "flipped" when I disagree with yours.

I'm of the opinion that Portland's model is inferior because there is a parking lane to the right of the streetcar lane, and a moving traffic lane to the left of the streetcar lane. This means cars are traversing the streetcar lane to get in and out of parking, creating an unnecessary conflict. It might work now with headways of 13 minutes (and even longer evenings/weekends), but what if it starts running with high frequency (which is the only way it will really be useful)? There are going to be tremendous amounts of conflicts between the streetcar and cars traversing its lane.

You saying Portland's model is superior doesn't make it so. You have your opinion, I have mine. Me disagreeing with your opinion is not "flipping out" or "getting upset" any more than you disagreeing with my opinion.

[bricky]

Originally Posted by J. Will

I absolutely did not. In which post specifically did I "demand" to see an example from another city? Tell me the post and the quote please. This statement you're making about me demanding to see examples from other cities is not true. You brought up Toronto, and I responded to it. I would not have mentioned how any other city works had you not brought it up.




No, this is a lie. I DID claim that everybody does have a design where streetcars do not switch back and forth between lanes around stops, which is true. I was NOT "upset" that you gave Portland credit for doing anything. That is not true. It is also a lie that I "flipped" when you showed me what you claim to be an inferior design (which is actually not). Had I "flipped" I would have resorted to cursing and personal attacks, which I did not. Disagreeing with you is not "flipping". It is just disagreeing with you. I'm surprised you cannot differentiate between the two.




I'm disagreeing with you. It is a lie that I am "upset". I think Portland's model is inferior, and I've explained why. You're entitled to disagree. I don't claim you've "flipped" when you disagree with my opinion though, so you shouldn't say I've "flipped" when I disagree with yours.

I'm of the opinion that Portland's model is inferior because there is a parking lane to the right of the streetcar lane, and a moving traffic lane to the left of the streetcar lane. This means cars are traversing the streetcar lane to get in and out of parking, creating an unnecessary conflict. It might work now with headways of 13 minutes (and even longer evenings/weekends), but what if it starts running with high frequency (which is the only way it will really be useful)? There are going to be tremendous amounts of conflicts between the streetcar and cars traversing its lane.

You saying Portland's model is superior doesn't make it so. You have your opinion, I have mine. Me disagreeing with your opinion is not "flipping out" or "getting upset" any more than you disagreeing with my opinion.

anger issues..

Portland looks like a great town!