Trains and bridges

Downtown Portland at SW Third and Washington (image courtesy Cafe Unknown) 

There may not be many buildings going up during the Great Recession, but transit is, well, moving along.

Anna Griffin's Saturday Oregonian column looked at streetcar investment in Portland today compared to the network that used to exist here. It all started with Griffin overhearing a man grumbling over his sushi at a local restaurant about streetcar costs, construction headaches, and lack of ridership.

"I'm right there with you, annoyed at the traffic backup as construction crews lay streetcar tracks on the bridge and skeptical about whether anyone but tourists will ride when it opens in 2012," Griffin wrote. "But let's make sure we're grumbling about the right thing -- like the fact that taxpayers are spending several hundred million dollars -- billions, if you consider what's happening nationally -- correcting planning mistakes of the past."

"A century ago we would have begun that rare night out by hopping on the neighborhood streetcar and using a network that went anywhere our little hearts might wander. Downtown for supper and a show. Council Crest to ride the carousel. Milwaukie, for whatever people did in Milwaukie back then. 'Anywhere you couldn't walk, you took the streetcar,' said Carl Abbott, an urban studies professor at Portland State."

In 1906, the Portland Railway Light and Power Company operated 40 lines over 172 miles of track. Amidst the rise of the automobile, suburbs and highway construction after World War II, Portland, like most all American cities, abandoned its streetcar system. Today we're spending $150 million to build 3.3 miles of streetcar on the east side and connect with the existing four-mile line on the west side of the Willamette River. But we still have a long, long way to go if we seek to match the extensiveness of the old system.

King's Cross Station, London (photo by Brian Libby)

Meanwhile, on another train front, Nathalie Weinstein reports in the Daily Journal of Commerce that the State of Oregon will not seek high-speed rail funding from the round of $2.1 billion in US Department of Transportation grants for high-speed rail corridor proposals, nor from the $245 million for specific construction projects within those corridors.

Though ODOT has several multi-million dollar rail projects on the boards, Betsy Imholt, ODOT rail study director, told Weinstein the transit department won’t apply for this round of fundingthe timeline for the grants, which must be applied for by Aug. 6, is too tight to find a 20 percent funding match from another group.  She went on to explain that if  ODOT had a 20 percent funding match from another source, it could apply for funding for studies to improve freight rail connections near the Rose Quarter and to improve the traffic flow of freight trains along the east bank of the Willamette River.

“All of ODOT’s money is legally tied to other projects and can’t be used for this,” Imholt said. “The money from road fees has to go back into roads. The timeline is just too fast to find a project partner.” In the meantime, ODOT is waiting to hear back on a US DOT grant it applied for in May to update the state’s rail plan, and to study the possibility of a high-speed rail line between Eugene and Portland.

What I wondered after reading about the non-application for high speed rail funding is, why don't we already have a plan in place? It's one thing for the state to simply have the funds or matching funds from another source. But why, in this Great Recession, are we seemingly wasting time and the chance to garner many millions in federal funding on merely studying the issue? I wish the state were ready to roll, both figuratively and literally. Let's not just contemplate high speed rail over the next decade. Let's make it happen.

It's not to say there isn't a place for study and preparation. But meanwhile, the Rose Quarter's future is being determined right now. Many have argued that a high-speed rail station makes sense in this location, both because the Rose Quarter is so centralized and because an east side location would be easier for a high speed train to negotiate. If we had an existing local and regional high speed rail plan in place, wouldn't this be a good time to dovetail those plans with a multimillion-dollar investment like the Rose Quarter? 

On another transit front, an upcoming City Club discussion asks, "Do we need a regional bridge authority?"

Hawthorne Bridge, Portland (photo by Brian Libby) 

"Portland metro area bridges - which connect multiple cities in several counties and are used daily by many of the region's 1.5 million residents - have a vital impact on our region's transportation," the club's announcement reads. "And yet, from replacing the crumbling Sellwood Bridge to doubts about Multnomah County's ability to fund bridges as well as other vital services, governance questions about bridge ownership, operation, use and funding continue to plague regional progress. City Club's recent report, Moving Forward: A Better Way to Govern Regional Transportation, recommended that many of these issues could be resolved by bringing area bridges under the control of a single bridge authority established by Metro."

On July 30, the City Club will host a Friday Forum discussion with Multnomah County Commissioner Deborah Kafoury; Lynn Peterson, Chair of the Clackamas County Board of Commissioners; and Mike Burton, Vice-Provost at PSU and former Metro Executive Officer about the pros and cons of a regional bridge authority, what actions might be needed to make this recommendation a reality and what other governance alternatives should be considered.

The Friday Forum will be held at The Governor Hotel at 614 SW 11th Avenue. Reserved lunches are $16 for members; $20 for nonmembers. Coffee/tea tickets are available at the door for $5 members/$10 non-members. General admission seats are available at the door, free for members/$5 for non-members.

Meanwhile, if the Portland area is struggling just to maintain the bridges it has, and to build a more extensive network of MAX trains and streetcars, do we really need the new Tri-Met bridge over the Willamette that is currently being planned? It would be wedged between the Ross Island and Marquam bridges. It would require many millions in transportation dollars that could (presumably) otherwise go to laying down more light rail and streetcar tracks. It has had a controversial design process in which one of the nation's most acclaimed bridge designers (Miguel Rosales) walked away with bitterness and frustration.

What if, instead, Tri-Met were to route MAX over the Hawthorne Bridge? Wouldn't that be cheaper and more effective? The location of the new bridge, after all, is far enough south of the downtown core that it wouldn't even make an effective way to cross the river unless one were headed to Sellwood, Milwaukie, or other parts south while much of Southeast Portland waits for a rail crossing of their own.

Comments

[r]

In your research, did you see anything about traffic levels on bridges decreasing due to less people communting for work during the recession?

[Joel T]

Hawthorne is a busy road and bridge in itself. As is Ross Island Bridge, which used to have streetcar tracks back in the day.
The new bridge is in the right position for routing a SE MAX line down Division or Powell in the future.

[GLV]

One of the more interesting things I have observed in the past few years, first on 5th/6th and now on N Broadway and the bridge, is the uncovering and removing of old streetcar tracks to make way for new tracks, in pretty much the exact same locaiton.

Regarding the Hawthorne: I think the frequency of bridge lifts precludes MAX service. The resultant delays would affect they entire system. Contrast that with the upper deck of the Steel Bridge, which hardly ever lifts.

[Alexander Craghead]

The new bridge is a good addition, and will greatly contribute to establishing reliable MAX service to Milwaukie.

That said, the idea of using the Hawthorne is not an entirely bad one. It was considered early on, but eliminated. I have heard conflicting reasons for this elemination and have not yet dug into the official planning documents to confirm any of them. A few that seem likely to be true, however, are the issue of brisge lifts that another commenter mentioned and an issue around the weight rating of the bridge.

There is, however, a political angle as well. The new bridge also helps out Portland Streetcar. It's being packaged as a bike/ped facility. It links the OMSI area to the OHSU SoWa campus. Each of these decisions have strong political support from active special interests. Using the Hawthrone will by-and-large scrap the benefits to these groups, and because of that I strongly suspect that removing the new bridge from the Orange Line and using the Hawthorne is likely a non-starter.

But who knows? The rules are entirely different now, and TriMet does need to save money and make cuts to the project. Removing the new bridge would more than cover the shortfall of Federal funding that the FTA anounced this week. At this point, in this economy, things that were once unthinkable are now possible.

[RailTheNation]

I am reading James Howard Kunstler's "The Geography of Nowhere" (1994) for the first time and ran into this gem of PDX streetcar history I wasn't aware of:

"In 1932, General Motors formed the United Cities Mobile Transit (UCMT) corporation to create a market for its products by taking over streetcar lines in small cities, and converting the lines to buses. UCMT was dissolved in 1935 after the American Transit Association censured it for trying to dismantle Portland, Oregon's, electric trolley lines. But this didn't stop General Motors."

[Fred Leeson]

Another problem with the Hawthorne is that is highly vulnerable to earthquakes. It likely would be the first to topple. Once those heavy concrete counterweights start to sway, the bridge's flimsy steel frame will offer little resistance. We're better off with something designed with earthquakes in mind. (I did a newsppaer article about this some years ago....and think about it everytime I walk, drive or bicycle across that bridge.)

[Peter]

The new bridge to support rail transit south of downtown could be packaged as either (a) a replacement of the Marquam Bridge, or (b) a twin bridge directly alongside the Ross Island for MAX and pedestrians and bikes, with the streetcar using the Hawthorne.

If the project were a Marquam Bridge replacement, it could be part of a redesign of the Eastbank freeway and vastly improve the relationship between downtown and the east side, while providing a new icon for the city.

If it were to be a twin to the Ross Island, it would make the OHSU tram regionally accessible via MAX, and provide a more direct light rail alignment to Milwaukie/southeast suburbs. OMSI would be accessible not via MAX but via the streetcar, which could travel over the Hawthorne.

The south reach of the river would remain more open, with the current spacing between bridges preserved.