HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #201  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2008, 11:34 PM
PacificNW's Avatar
PacificNW PacificNW is online now
"Native Born"
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Gilbert, Arizona
Posts: 3,093
So, what are the buses, or BRT, going to use for fuel? Electricity, gas, diesel, hydrogen, natural gas, bio, or flex? What is the carbon footprint of each of these options?
__________________
Native
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #202  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2008, 11:47 PM
alexjon's Avatar
alexjon alexjon is offline
Bears of antiquity
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Downtown/First Hill, Seattle, WA
Posts: 8,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacificNW View Post
So, what are the buses, or BRT, going to use for fuel? Electricity, gas, diesel, hydrogen, natural gas, bio, or flex? What is the carbon footprint of each of these options?
It doesn't cost too much to add in an electric system for BRT. Remember, cities like Seattle have trolleybuses!
__________________
"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
     
     
  #203  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2008, 12:42 AM
bvpcvm bvpcvm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Portland
Posts: 2,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by JordanL View Post
Well for the first point, the Pearl was heavy into development and investment long before the streetcar was going anywhere, and a lot of Pearl development has been outside of the streetcar corridor.
what? where is this "Pearl development" that's "outside of the streetcar corridor"? the whole Pearl is within a couple blocks (3 at most, if you count 14th-11th) of the streetcar. and the pearl doesn't extend any further eastward than the n park blocks, so you can't point to development (what little there is) in old town and use that as an example of development that would have happened anyway w/o streetcar.

(i agree w/you about powell max tho)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #204  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2008, 1:44 AM
PacificNW's Avatar
PacificNW PacificNW is online now
"Native Born"
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Gilbert, Arizona
Posts: 3,093
⬆ I remember Seattle and their "trolley buses" very well. I rode #43 the 20+ years I lived in Seattle.
__________________
Native

Last edited by PacificNW; Aug 28, 2008 at 1:57 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #205  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2008, 2:07 AM
twofiftyfive twofiftyfive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 158
Buses are faster than the streetcar because they can go around things that are in their way, and they can let people on and off without being pulled all the way up to the end of the platform. The streetcar combines the worst of both worlds--it's fixed rail like MAX, but it rides in traffic like buses. The only thing I like about the streetcar is that it runs on electricity.

I do support MAX, though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #206  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2008, 2:17 AM
alexjon's Avatar
alexjon alexjon is offline
Bears of antiquity
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Downtown/First Hill, Seattle, WA
Posts: 8,340
Oh, thank god I'm not living in the suburbs-- I'd be freaked out by the convenience railfans
__________________
"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
     
     
  #207  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2008, 3:24 AM
pdxman's Avatar
pdxman pdxman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland
Posts: 1,037
My only problem with the streetcar has to do with its implementation--too many stops! I'd be more than willing to lose the stop I use if it meant the system as a whole could be faster. Cut/condense some stops and then the streetcar could be an effective commuter tool. If its accessibility you crave then buses are the answer; they can start and stop faster and as mentioned above they can maneuver around obstacles a lot easier. Buses also don't have to stop at every station/stop like the streetcar (hence my plead to cut some stops). And I do ride the streetcar almost daily, this is just my opinion from my observations.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #208  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2008, 3:45 AM
alexjon's Avatar
alexjon alexjon is offline
Bears of antiquity
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Downtown/First Hill, Seattle, WA
Posts: 8,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdxman View Post
My only problem with the streetcar has to do with its implementation--too many stops! I'd be more than willing to lose the stop I use if it meant the system as a whole could be faster. Cut/condense some stops and then the streetcar could be an effective commuter tool. If its accessibility you crave then buses are the answer; they can start and stop faster and as mentioned above they can maneuver around obstacles a lot easier. Buses also don't have to stop at every station/stop like the streetcar (hence my plead to cut some stops). And I do ride the streetcar almost daily, this is just my opinion from my observations.
Since when do streetcars make unrequested stops at stations without passengers there?

Of course, if I could cut any stop, I'd get rid of the 10th and Alder stop in a heartbeat!
__________________
"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
     
     
  #209  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2008, 4:02 AM
philopdx philopdx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Deep South
Posts: 1,275
I do wish that the streetcar was more efficient at people moving, but it is quite an investment in a neighborhood precisely because it cannot be moved. It provides tremendous incentive to construct along the streetcar line because you know it can't be moved two blocks over, so you have perpetually guaranteed foot traffic.

If you think that the streetcar route has no correlation to foot traffic, sit down with Michael Powell for 2 minutes and try to tell him the streetcar is a waste of money and resources and can't benefit private industry, as he merrily indulges your argument while peering behind massive stacks of $100 bills.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #210  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2008, 4:15 AM
PacificNW's Avatar
PacificNW PacificNW is online now
"Native Born"
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Gilbert, Arizona
Posts: 3,093
10th & Alder? Why? The Governor Hotel is across the street. That whole area is prime for redevelopment.... "Light Rail" and the "Streetcar" systems are not designed to be "rapid transit" (here in PDX or any city, that I know of).....now... or in the future. To have rapid transit a whole new system will have to be designed....like a subway through downtown with a route over/under the river....the need for such a project is along way off into the future, imo.
__________________
Native
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #211  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2008, 4:24 AM
Sekkle's Avatar
Sekkle Sekkle is offline
zzzzzzzz
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland area
Posts: 2,273
Quote:
Of course, if I could cut any stop, I'd get rid of the 10th and Alder stop in a heartbeat!
But it's right next to all those food carts!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #212  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2008, 5:00 AM
pdxman's Avatar
pdxman pdxman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland
Posts: 1,037
Alexjon: The streetcar makes unrequested stops all the time. And thats not an exaggeration. If you're lucky you'll have a driver who keeps going when nobody hits the strip or door button and the stop is empty, but even if a few people are on board and nobody has requested a stop the driver will more than likely stop to empty. There are a few drivers I love because they drive like a bat out of hell and go fast but most are like tour bus drivers. And I would actually keep the alder stop and get rid of the stark stop.

philopdx: I never said streetcar was a waste of money. I'm well aware of the money its generated along the line but I still think some of the less used, repetitive stops could be eliminated. Now more than a few years down the road I don't think it crazy to do inventory on some of the stops and see which ones are more useful than others. Obviously stops at major activity hubs should stay, ie. couch stops, johnson, max stops, psu stops, etc.

PacNW: I will definitely have to disagree with you about light rail not being rapid transit. Thats why its called the Metropolitan Area EXPRESS is it not? Though I will say there's nothing "express" about 14 stops along 3 miles of track through DT. Thats why I think a subway would do wonders for the MAX system. It could provide bigger stations with faster service between each stop and then streetcars could do the job that the MAX is doing already on the existing tracks above.

Anyways, sorry for the long response. This is all just my opinion and I know most on here won't agree but I had to throw my 2 cents in. I guess it comes down to speed vs. accessibility, and you can't have both! I just see lack of speed as a major reason why a large amount people don't use transit, and I'd love to get them on board and get them out of their cars.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #213  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2008, 5:55 AM
PacificNW's Avatar
PacificNW PacificNW is online now
"Native Born"
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Gilbert, Arizona
Posts: 3,093
Give me an example of one LRT system that is "rapid" which operates on street level along side traffic and pedestrians? I have seen or experienced none. I think TriMet has stated that in order to justify a subway/tunnel there needs to be a higher population base who actually live downtown PDX (or a desire to come downtown) along with a higher downtown employment base. There might be the desire for a subway (or a tunnel under downtown) but the demand isn't quite there yet but I am sure it will be coming in time.
__________________
Native

Last edited by PacificNW; Aug 28, 2008 at 4:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #214  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2008, 6:49 AM
pdxman's Avatar
pdxman pdxman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland
Posts: 1,037
^^^Thats the thing, IMO I don't think light rail should be street level next to autos and peds. Unless the city already has in place some sort of heavy rail then I suppose you could run LRT like a streetcar. I just think that anything rail should be fast, grade separated with limited stops (the exception being streetcar, because its basically a bus on rails) with buses feeding the rail lines. And since portland doesn't and probably never will have an extensive heavy rail network, I think the MAX can and should act as a replacement.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #215  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2008, 7:29 AM
deasine deasine is offline
Vancouver Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdxman View Post
Anyways, sorry for the long response. This is all just my opinion and I know most on here won't agree but I had to throw my 2 cents in. I guess it comes down to speed vs. accessibility, and you can't have both!
That's definitely possible... it just depends on proper transit planning.

I don't think a subway line is needed in Portland... we have to begin figuring out what is a need and a want, what is fantasy and what are our priorities. Subways are expensive, Light Rail isn't. The cost of one subway line can give you miles and miles of Light Rail, connecting many communities that are needing rapid transit access in Greater Portland. Also with light rail, you have huge flexibility.

Perhaps in the future, there could be a transit tunnel where the light rail system is underground in the downtown core, but on the surface in the suburbs.

When I was in Portland, I was definitely impressed on how fast the light rail system was... signal priorities, etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #216  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2008, 7:03 PM
2oh1's Avatar
2oh1 2oh1 is online now
9-7-2oh1-!
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: downtown Portland
Posts: 2,272
-deleted-



The point was already made above.

Last edited by 2oh1; Aug 28, 2008 at 7:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #217  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2008, 7:46 PM
JordanL JordanL is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by anp View Post
OK, I can perhaps see the argument that buses allow more flexibility, but the claim that buses are faster and can run more frequently than streetcars sounds spurious to me. Please explain why you think buses are faster and can run more frequently when they are subject to many of the same limitations as a streetcar (driving in traffic on city streets, frequent stops, missing traffic lights because of stops). As someone who's ridden buses here, I can tell you they're not very fast when driving through heavily-populated areas.
The primary reason is a practicality of the vehicle: busses accelerate and decelerate faster. They also don't get stuck in traffic because they aren't stuck, they can move.

And the busses here in Portland carry more people per bus than our streetcars, cost less to purchase more, and cost less to maintain, making it easier to run them more frequently.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #218  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2008, 1:31 AM
Sekkle's Avatar
Sekkle Sekkle is offline
zzzzzzzz
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland area
Posts: 2,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by JordanL View Post
The primary reason is a practicality of the vehicle: busses accelerate and decelerate faster. They also don't get stuck in traffic because they aren't stuck, they can move.

And the busses here in Portland carry more people per bus than our streetcars, cost less to purchase more, and cost less to maintain, making it easier to run them more frequently.
I'm reasonably certain that streetcars can accelerate faster than buses. I agree with you about a bus's ability to maneuver in traffic, though.

I'm positive that your statement that a Portland bus can carry more people than a streetcar is false.

The maintenance cost comparison per rider is actually slightly in favor of streetcars, though per vehichle buses do cost less to maintain, and the capital cost is lower.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #219  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2008, 3:29 PM
digme digme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 51
Why doesn't the streetcar have a dedicated lane? I was surprised to find us stuck behind traffic while riding the streetcar when I visited Portland. Seems like that could help some of the slowness
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #220  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2008, 3:33 PM
alexjon's Avatar
alexjon alexjon is offline
Bears of antiquity
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Downtown/First Hill, Seattle, WA
Posts: 8,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by digme View Post
Why doesn't the streetcar have a dedicated lane? I was surprised to find us stuck behind traffic while riding the streetcar when I visited Portland. Seems like that could help some of the slowness
Unnecessary at this point, but it's been expressed as an option in the future when scale makes it necessary.

For practical use, it works perfectly. It's mainly geared at those who would walk in to work in the morning or who want to wander over to the Pearl from PSU.
__________________
"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
     
     
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


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:04 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.