HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1361  
Old Posted Apr 25, 2007, 3:40 PM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,533
^maybe they can get it completed early and run streetcars up the mall until the Clackamas line opens?
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1362  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2007, 2:48 PM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,533
Wind turbines to be placed on four PSU buildings, TriMet considering bus mall

PSU taking wind power for a whirl
Testing - A Portland inventor's vertical-axis generators will be placed on four buildings
Thursday, April 26, 2007
PATRICK O'NEILL
The Oregonian

In one vision of the future, the roof of your office building will be a colorful garden of toplike electrical generators whirling in the wind.

The silent, cheap "urban turbines" will feed the building a steady drip of current, cutting the amount of electricity the building draws from a utility company. And at night, when everybody goes home and the building's dark, the generators will still turn, sending power back to the utility's distribution lines.

The beginnings of such a rooftop wind farm will take root in Portland next week when four 40-inch-tall fiberglass turbines will be planted on buildings at Portland State University.

The bright green turbines, designed by Portland inventor Toby Kinkaid, will be evaluated with the help of PSU faculty and students in what is believed to be the first field test of its kind by a university on the West Coast.

Portland is likely the only city on the West Coast where the urban rooftop turbines are being looked at, says Ron Stimmel, small-wind advocate with the American Wind Energy Association.

The project is intended to find out whether wind -- which blows freely around downtown buildings -- could be harnessed and eventually help to supplement or replace increasingly expensive power generated by gas- and coal-burning plants.

The prototypes designed by Kinkaid, co-founder of Oregon Wind Corp., are radically different from the familiar generators that capture wind with airplane-style propellers. The Helyx uses two precisely twisted "wings" of fiberglass rotating around a vertical axis like a child's top.

Vertical axis generators come in a variety of shapes and sizes since their development in the early 20th century. Kinkaid says his is especially designed to take advantage of low wind speeds.

He and other believers in the vertical axis generators say the devices are better suited than the propeller versions for urban areas. They're quieter, vibrate less and can capture the fluky city wind coming from any direction, he says.

Eventually, he says, thousands of urban wind turbines might be linked together to form a "virtual power plant," providing a substantial amount of energy to the utility grid.

Efficiency data

These first devices will power 40-watt generators and send out data over a wireless computer network telling researchers how efficient the devices are and whether they have a place in PSU's active sustainable energy program.

Students and faculty members will measure the output of the generators at various places on the roofs, finding just the perfect windy spots for them.

Dresden Skees-Gregory, coordinator of PSU's sustainability program, hopes the turbines eventually could shave a few dollars off of the school's $3.6 million annual electric bill.

"I believe we're the first ones in the West to be doing field research on these micro-turbines," she said.

Skees-Gregory said one turbine each will be placed on the roofs of the Fourth Avenue Building, the terrace of the Urban Plaza Distance Learning Center and the Ondine and Broadway House residence halls.

She said the only turbine visible from street level will be on the Urban Plaza terrace.

Kinkaid estimates the devices can be mass produced for $1.50 per watt, meaning a 40-watt machine would cost $60, excluding installation. He said the prototypes cost about $200 each because they're made one at a time, by hand.

One crucial factor in the success of wind power is the length of time it would take a generator to pay for itself.

That's devilishly hard to calculate, says Stimmel of the wind power association. It all depends on how often the wind blows and how much utilities charge for their power.

Portland General Electric, for example, charges 8.1 cents per kilowatt hour. If the 40-watt generator was spinning to capacity all of the time it would take about two years to generate $60 worth of electricity. The less wind, the longer the payback time.

Stimmel said that's optimistic, saying the small-wind industry payback times run anywhere between six and 30 years.

While PSU is exploring the wind possibility of its rooftops, Tri-Met officials are considering using the Helyx turbines to dress up the south end of the new downtown transit mall.

Bob Hastings, project architect, said he'd like to place nine of the devices on 20-foot poles that will support transit power lines. The turbines would generate as many as 360 watts -- a drop in the bucket for TriMet -- but they'd look pretty and would send the message that TriMet cares about energy conservation, he said.

"Marginal" for wind power

While big propeller wind turbines dot the hills along the windy Columbia Gorge, there are questions about whether there's enough wind in downtown Portland to make the smaller turbines effective. A "wind resource map" published by the U.S. Department of Energy shows that Portland -- and most of the Willamette Valley -- is "marginal" for wind power production.

Other micro-turbines are in use in other parts of the country.

In the "Windy City," Chicago architectural firm Aerotecture International Inc. aims to incorporate vertical axis turbines into the design of buildings.

Robbie Harris, a spokesperson for Aerotecture, said the company has installed generators at half a dozen sites -- most of them in experimental settings.

The company, formed in 2001, is completing negotiations with Chicago city officials to place turbines on the top of the 650-foot-tall Daley Center, in a 16-month feasibility test.

Other turbines were built into the roof of a Chicago housing project for homeless people which opened in early March. Barry Mullen, a vice president of Mercy Housing Lakefront, which owns the building, said he expects the devices to generate almost $4,000 worth of electricity a year. But so far, he said, the units are too new to provide a solid track record.

Most of Aerotecture's turbines are 10 feet long by 5 feet wide. Under ideal conditions, with a 30-mph wind, Harris said, each device can generate 1,000 watts, enough to light up 10 100-watt light bulbs.

The turbines cost about $20,000 each, including site analysis costs and installation. But those costs are expected to drop to one-tenth of that when mass production begins, she said.

"Right now when we make a turbine we're making it in a one-off kind of way," she said. "Once we start mass production the costs will come down. They're simpler to build than a bicycle."

So far, she said, there has not been a big demand for small wind turbines on commercial and industrial buildings. In most places, the cost of electricity hasn't risen high enough to financially justify the cost of installing turbines, she said.

Stimmel, of the American Wind Energy Association, says small vertical axis turbines have been a source of controversy.

"A lot of people soured on the vertical axis because the efficiency data isn't always reliable," he said. "A lot of the claims aren't supported by testing."

To answer the efficiency questions, the association is developing a certification body for small wind generators. The U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo., would test the devices.

Stimmel said the best data available shows that more than 43,800 small wind turbines -- all but about 1 percent of them propeller-driven -- have been installed in the U.S. during the past 15 years. He expects that number to grow rapidly -- particularly if power prices rise dramatically. That would encourage more people to buy the turbines, triggering the efficiencies of mass production and lowering the cost of the devices.

Stimmel doesn't expect hordes of buyers until electric prices take a substantial jump, however.

While interest in small wind generators is growing, they're likely to be overshadowed by advances in solar power, says Mark Kendall, senior policy analyst for renewable resources with the Oregon Department of Energy.

Big technological advances are expected to bring sizeable improvements in efficiency and cost to solar arrays, he says. Wind power, on the other hand, is a well-developed technology.

"We don't see those kinds of improvements in bearings and aerodynamics and lightweight materials," he said. But electricity prices are on the rise, he said, making any alternative energy source more attractive.

Stimmel says that even if the economics of the small turbines don't attract buyers, the idea of energy conservation will.

"More and more people are becoming environmentally conscious," he said. "They want independence from the grid and from volatile energy prices. It's a highly visible way to show your neighbors that it can be done and this is what's happening."

Patrick O'Neill; 503-221-8233; poneill@news.oregonian.com
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/orego...000.xml&coll=7
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1363  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2007, 2:50 PM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,533
here's a link to the graphic of the turbine that accompanied the article
http://www.oregonlive.com/cgi-bin/pr...5117261970.pdf
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1364  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2007, 3:56 PM
65MAX's Avatar
65MAX 65MAX is offline
Karma Police
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: People's Republic of Portland
Posts: 2,138
Great news.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1365  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2007, 4:06 PM
BrG BrG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 342
These are really neat. Helyx generators are a great idea.

We planned to used them on the Burnside Bridgehead, had we been awarded the project.

Oregon Wind is one of Brad M's projects too. He's also one of the principals of Oregon Wind. I've seen all the prototypes and they look extremely cool when in motion. You can see a couple fundamental videos on this modest little website. http://oregonwind.com

One of the earlier planned uses was atop the proposed Jets Football Stadium, that was a part of the 2012 Summer Olympics proposal.

Unfortunately, neither that or the Bridgehead proposal panned out.

They actually went over to Japan and were testing them there as well. I have some great video of a small installation in Tokyo.

My favorite images though are from the beta testing, where they have a huge 15' tall full scale prototype...mounted to the back of a pickup truck.

If you need wind to test something... you create it! LOL.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1366  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2007, 4:56 PM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,533
Turbines on the Burnside Bridgehead would have been sweet!

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrG
My favorite images though are from the beta testing, where they have a huge 15' tall full scale prototype...mounted to the back of a pickup truck.

If you need wind to test something... you create it! LOL.
interesting news...does it produce enough power to power the vehicle? The new electric car? Honestly, it would be funny to see a 10' or 15' turbine mounted to every car in America!
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1367  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2007, 6:28 PM
BrG BrG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 342
I'd have to go back and look at all my notes and see. I had power info around somewhere.

I highly doubt it could run the truck. It's also way too big to be practical mounted to a vehicle. Some of the prototypes were tested in the desert atop a toyota hatchback. A cheap wind tunnel. :-)

RE: burnside bridgehead, if you go look at the old renderings we had wind turbines all over the tops of the "office/ flex light industrial/ marketplace" building.

As memory serves, they do produce/convert a significant amount of energy. more than I expected. Even in a light breeze.

I have that pickup truck photo somewhere.... that's harmless. I'll see about posting that at least.

Just gotta find it.

Last edited by BrG; Apr 26, 2007 at 6:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1368  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2007, 6:47 PM
BrG BrG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 342
Ok, found it... we'll see if this image attach works. A very early prototype. I'm sure they have progressed beyond these, as it's at least 2-3 years old.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1369  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2007, 7:20 PM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,533
^holy crap...not quite what I had in mind. That's pretty cool!

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrG
RE: burnside bridgehead, if you go look at the old renderings we had wind turbines all over the tops of the "office/ flex light industrial/ marketplace" building.
which company's submission would you be referring too?
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1370  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2007, 8:33 PM
tworivers's Avatar
tworivers tworivers is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Portland/Cascadia
Posts: 2,599
BrG is talking about the Beam proposal. So, so, so unfortunate that they didn't get the job, as their entire design approach was stellar imo.

BrG, is there still talk of Beam/Works coordinating in some way with Opus and still being involved with part of the project?

I wish Opus would just back out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1371  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2007, 8:51 PM
BrG BrG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 342
Last I heard there was talk of some negotiation, but I've no idea if it panned out to any degree. I was told awhile ago, there were some PDC land aquisition items that needed to be properly dealt with before the project could proceed in earnest. That could be resolved by now.

Fortunately for Opus, they had the good sense to hire Gary Larson to do lead design. His work has been solid. I suspect the end product will be pretty nice, given the difficult political/economic enivronment from which the project was borne.

Last edited by BrG; Apr 26, 2007 at 9:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1372  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2007, 8:55 PM
BrG BrG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 342
Here was the jets stadium proposal, you'll see very large wind turbines proposed.. IIRC, KPF ws the design architect.







Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1373  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2007, 6:12 AM
zilfondel zilfondel is offline
Submarine de Nucléar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 4,480
This is really cool!

Last edited by zilfondel; Apr 28, 2007 at 3:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1374  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2007, 6:30 AM
seaskyfan seaskyfan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,751
What a cool idea - hope to see turbines on top of tall buildings everywhere soon!

Last edited by seaskyfan; Apr 27, 2007 at 6:30 AM. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1375  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2007, 3:15 PM
MarkDaMan's Avatar
MarkDaMan MarkDaMan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Portland
Posts: 7,533
Sooner or later, drivers will pay: A conversation with Rex Burkholder
Daily Journal of Commerce
by Libby Tucker
04/27/2007

Rex Burkholder has a new bike, and he’s not too shy to show it off. Neither is the Metro councilor too shy to call his agency’s 2035 Regional Transportation Plan “groundbreaking.”

The regional government is taking a new approach to transportation development with the plan, which will dictate the region’s transportation improvements for the next 20 years. Instead of simply investing in areas with the most traffic, Metro will pick projects that best meet the region’s 2040 Growth Concept goals for land use, transportation, the economy and the environment.

To select those projects, Metro and economic consulting firm EcoNorthwest are devising new methods to measure various transportation projects’ community development potential.

The plan, if it passes in November, would be one of the nation’s first “outcomes-based” transportation plans.

But, critic and economist Joe Cortright says, Metro’s plan is still too focused on traffic congestion. Few of the region’s proposed projects that would increase traffic capacity, he says, would show any real benefit to metropolitan Portland’s economy.

DJC: How are you deciding which transportation projects will best suit the region?

Rex Burkholder: There’s two areas we divided this into in terms of trying to understand what investments to make. One is the mobility area and that’s the longer-distance movement of freight and people; the TriMet system, the ODOT highway system and the regional trails (are) in there, too, because they connect various cities.

And then we’re sending out a solicitation to develop a list of community building projects, which are local city and county projects that are mostly about how you provide access to jobs, houses (and) services.

The goals are specifically related to the Region 2040 vision. We have this idea; we want to build this urban area that has a good, healthy economy, a healthy environment and opportunities to get engaged socially and civically.

DJC: How is this investment strategy different from those used in the past?

Burkholder: The real shift we see going on is that, traditionally, transportation planning has been, “Where’s the traffic? OK, let’s throw some money there.” And what we’ve found is that as you get bigger highways you create more traffic. ... We’ve spent trillions over the last 50 years building roads without thinking what the outcome is that we want. So what we have is a lot of roads but not necessarily well-built cities that provide those opportunities.

DJC: Isn’t the mobility component of your strategy still traffic-oriented, though?

Burkholder: We’re going to be looking at that in different ways as well. ... There’s only so much money available for these projects. So the freeway system we have today is what we’re going to have for a long time. ... It’s a limited resource. So we’re going to be talking a lot more about how to tweak that to help it work better and how to manage it.

And it may get to the point where we say we’re going to start charging for use of that very precious commodity and use market forces to determine how it’s used. Because right now, (when) you widen a highway, people say, “Now I can live further away from downtown.”

DJC: Will congestion pricing or whatever you decide to do be in the plan?

Burkholder: Definitely, and this is consistent with the Oregon transportation plan that was adopted this last year. Management of what we have will be critical.

And you can do that in a lot of ways; you can put HOV lanes in like they have in the Seattle area. Ramp meters we’re already doing. In a sense that’s a form of pricing, where you’re saying, “If you want to get on this highway you’re going to have to wait your turn to get in.”

We also are looking at truck lanes. One of the things we’ve found through our studies here is that 50 percent of the trucks entering the Portland metro area leave the other side. And we never realized that – they don’t even stop. So if one of our functions is interstate commerce, how do we get those through in the shortest amount of time so we don’t affect the larger economic conditions of the state and the region?

DJC: So you’re not identifying anything specific?

Burkholder: Well, there are some very specific things we do. I think the pricing thing is a politically difficult one that’s going to come. But the other pieces we’re already doing, (like) the intelligent transportation system work. There’s something like 400 sensors out there in the system, and we use those to determine how long people should wait at ramp meters.

There probably will be a toll bridge across the Columbia to replace the existing bridges or supplement the bridges, and the discussion is that will be priced based on the time of day. In California they’re experimenting with a more manipulative type of fare structures – like it’s more expensive for trucks in the morning, and in the middle of the day it’s more expensive for cars.

That’s in the mix of ideas for the future. There’s lots of other things we’re doing that are not as effective (as pricing).

DJC: Are there things that Metro is looking at now that we don’t currently pay for that we would be paying for?

Burkholder: The state looked at three (projects) with a private firm that didn’t pan out. One was the Sunrise Corridor; another was the Newberg-Dundee Bypass. ... We also did a study on Highway 217, and one of the recommendations there was to add a third lane that would be priced, and right now no action has been taken because that was fairly unpopular. ... The idea there was to build a third lane with existing financing, but it would be 2089 before there was enough money. Another (option) was do just one lane (and pay for it with user fees).

DJC: And does an extra lane really give drivers an advantage?

Burkholder: Yes. For the people that pay the price, our model shows they would actually benefit in terms of travel time. But because of growth the other two lanes would be similar to today in the sense that it would still be congestion.

DJC: But Metro doesn’t have a concrete plan for where or when you will be pricing?

Burkholder: No. It’s something that’s being discussed all over the country. It’s obviously difficult, and there are some very powerful people, like Rep. (James) Oberstar (D-Minn.), who is the chair of the (U.S.) House transportation committee, pretty strongly opposed to tolling. (Rep. Peter) DeFazio (D-Ore.) is also very leery of tolling except for new facilities.

DJC: Going back to the Regional Transportation Plan, there’s a significant freight component in the way you’re evaluating things. Where does that come from?

Burkholder: Well, part of it was a lot of pressure out there from the freight community saying, “You’re not paying attention to us. We see changes we don’t like.” ... Because of their pushing, we’ve done a lot more study.

DJC: Are you making that judgment from an economic development standpoint or just because of the pressure put on you by the freight community?

Burkholder: Well, no, the freight community got us to think about it. ... They’ve been helping us figure out the real issues, and we’re doing analysis we’ve never done before.

And again it’s because we used to have so much capacity. ... I worked with one of the engineers that built the Banfield (Expressway), and he said he stood there on opening day and said, “There’s never going to be enough people to fill this thing up.” We had so much money we never had to think about making choices or who was going to use them.

DJC: Is freight receiving priority in your analysis?

Burkholder: I wouldn’t say it’s receiving priority, but it’s much higher on the list in terms of meeting the concerns of that. ... We have to start to look at the dozens of places you have problems and which are the most critical. That’s where freight comes in. That’s one piece of it.

DJC: It seems like Metro is moving away from purely traffic-oriented investment, but it’s not being as progressive as it could be and one example is the Columbia River Crossing. If you were to divide that money among all the commuters, you could buy them all a condo in Portland.

Burkholder: There are big projects like CRC that are really motivated as much by the fact that they’re reaching the end of their useful life and they have all sorts of problems with safety. ... And those are special cases because there aren’t many projects like that.

For the most part we’re looking at how you use these investments to leverage better development. ... And a key piece on the community-building piece is how you make it so you create communities where people don’t have to travel. And I think that’s the future.

DJC: How do you measure (the impact on development) for investment then?

Burkholder: We have taken each of those goals (in the draft Regional Transportation Plan) and turned them into criteria. And part of the work we’re doing with EcoNorthwest as a contractor is turn those into performance measures. ... We have experience with that because we’ve been doing it for the last six years as part of the regional travel options programs.

It is an exciting way of doing things. ... Seattle and Portland are two places in the country that are actually doing this outcomes-based decision-making on transportation investments because everybody’s facing this problem; everybody’s broke. And we’re saying, “How do you spend this money better?” It seems like a new, groundbreaking way of looking at transportation.

DJC: In the past the question has been, “How do we get from here to here?” instead of “How do we make this community a better place to live?”

Burkholder: Actually Carl Hosticka said it really good, one of the other (Metro) councilors at one of our stakeholder workshops. He said, “We used to talk about transportation as getting from Point A to Point B. Now we talk about, ‘How do we get Point A and Point B next to each other?’”

http://www.djc-or.com/viewStory.cfm?...29344&userID=1
__________________
make paradise, tear up a parking lot
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1376  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2007, 4:51 PM
edgepdx's Avatar
edgepdx edgepdx is offline
No longer PDX
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hood River, OR
Posts: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkDaMan View Post
[B]

DJC: It seems like Metro is moving away from purely traffic-oriented investment, but it’s not being as progressive as it could be and one example is the Columbia River Crossing. If you were to divide that money among all the commuters, you could buy them all a condo in Portland.

http://www.djc-or.com/viewStory.cfm?...29344&userID=1
I think I said that on this very forum.

A very interesting article overall. The point about trucks is something that really should be considered in the overall planning. During the day I5 and 205 are clogged with semis, if 50% of those are just passing through maybe a freight only bypass could be built along I205 (with an exits for the airport and the Sunnyside industrial area).

Overall I like the idea of congestion based pricing, but with all lanes treated equally, to me something seems unjust about having a government built pay express lane full of BMW's while Joe Toyota is stuck in traffic. Sort of like the first class line at airport security, which always irks me.

I also like the idea of basing transportation decisions on desired outcomes. Currently most transportation planning seems reactionary, sort of playing wack-a-mole with traffic rather than thinking about the goal which is moving people and goods effectively. The proposed approach (with the exception of the Columbia Crossing project which I disagree with) bodes well for Portland in the future.
__________________
Brawndo - The Thirst Mutilator
"It's got what plants crave!"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1377  
Old Posted Apr 27, 2007, 5:43 PM
pdxstreetcar's Avatar
pdxstreetcar pdxstreetcar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,300
Portland Streetcar Gets Funding Boost From Feds

By Andrew Theen - OPB

PORTLAND, OR 2007-04-26

A proposed extension of the Portland Streetcar line got a much-needed federal boost Thursday.

The Federal Transit Administration announced that up to $75 million from the Small Starts program will be available for the project. The plan is to take the streetcar line across the Willamette River, to connect downtown to the east side.

Congressmen Peter DeFazio and Earl Blumenauer spearheaded the Small Starts program. Blumenauer says this announcement, coupled with Oregon Iron Work's plan to build streetcars locally, will make Portland the streetcar capital of the nation.

He said 20 years of planning is starting to pay off.

Earl Blumenauer: "Now we're going to be involved with the most rapid program of anyplace in the United States. It's going to mean hundreds of jobs initially, and it's going to be thousands of jobs if we do this right."

Blumenauer said the announcement "injects certainty" into the plan. The $152 million project still needs to secure at least $77 million in local funding.

The new streetcar extension is due to be finished in late 2010 or 2011

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/op...CLE_ID=1073836
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1378  
Old Posted May 2, 2007, 2:14 AM
Dougall5505's Avatar
Dougall5505 Dougall5505 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: P-town
Posts: 1,976
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1379  
Old Posted May 2, 2007, 2:54 AM
alexjon's Avatar
alexjon alexjon is offline
Bears of antiquity
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Downtown/First Hill, Seattle, WA
Posts: 8,340
The brick work is amazing
__________________
"The United States is in no way founded upon the Christian religion." -- George Washington & John Adams in a diplomatic message to Malta
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1380  
Old Posted May 2, 2007, 6:37 PM
Room 606 Room 606 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Berkeley/Portland
Posts: 68
I'm not sure if this has been posted previously, but it does a good job of laying out what will happen when. From what I've heard construction is pretty much on schedule, with work on North and Central Mall Zones 1 being complete later this month.


Major construction schedule by area
Location Light Rail Construction Street/Walkway Finishes

North Mall
Zone 1: 5th Ave., Irving to Everett March-April 2007 April-May 2007
Zone 2: 5th Ave., Everett to Burnside May-June 2007 June-July 2007
Zone 3: 6th Ave., Burnside to Everett June-Aug. 2007 Aug.-Sept. 2007
Zone 4: 6th Ave., Everett to Irving Aug.-Oct. 2007 Oct.-Nov. 2007
North Entry/Glisan Ramp from Steel Bridge Jan. 2007-Sept. 2008

Central Mall
Zone 1: 5th Ave., Burnside to Stark March-April 2007 April-May 2007
Zone 2: 5th Ave., Stark to Morrison April-June 2007 June-July 2007
Zone 3: 5th Ave., Morrison to Salmon June-Aug. 2007 Aug.-Sept. 2007
Zone 4: 6th Ave., Salmon to Morrison Aug.-Oct. 2007 Oct.-Nov. 2007
Zone 5: 6th Ave., Morrison to Stark Oct.-Dec. 2007 Dec. 2007-Jan. 2008
Zone 6: 6th Ave., Stark to Burnside Jan.-Feb. 2008 Feb.-March 2008

South Mall
Zone 1: 5th Ave., Salmon to Jefferson April-May 2007 May-June 2007
Zone 2: 5th Ave., Jefferson to Market May-July 2007 July-Aug. 2007
Zone 3: 5th Ave., Market to Harrison July-Sept. 2007 Sept.-Oct. 2007
Zone 4: 5th Ave., Harrison to Jackson Sept.-Nov. 2007 Nov.-Dec. 2007
Zone 5: 6th Ave., Jackson to Harrison Nov. 2007-Jan. 2008 Jan.-Feb. 2008
Zone 6: 6th Ave., Harrison to Market Jan.-March 2008 Mar.-April 2008
Zone 7: 6th Ave., Market to Jefferson Mar.-May 2008 May-June 2008
Zone 8: 6th Ave., Jefferson to Salmon May-June 2008 July-Aug. 2008
Turnaround at SW Jackson St. June 2007-Dec. 2008
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Portland > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:15 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.