New Max Line to Clackamas Goes Forward
Well, the cranks and the antiplanners and the car lovers will have another cause to bewail about – it looks like the downtown to Clackamas Max Line is really going forward.
It will cost $557 million and serve 47,000 riders daily on 6.5 miles of new track. It is really two projects, downtown Portland 5th and 6th Streets and I-205 from Gateway to Clackamas Town Center. It seems like a pretty good deal when compared to the $4,7 billion San Jose wants to spend to extend BART 16 miles to that city from Alameda County.
I’m sure the opponents will say it’s a waste of money, and call for new roads, or new lanes on existing roads, instead.
Weil, new roads aren’t cheap either. Look at the cost for 14 miles of Sunrise Corridor expressway from I-205 to Boring – about $900 million. And most of that is rural territory – who knows what the land costs would be for a new freeway through Portland in lieu of the MAX extension?
Of course, we could take that nice median in I-205 planned thirty years ago for a future light rail line and use it to add another lane to the freeway instead. That would probably serve 40,000 more cars a day – the equivalent of 47,000 riders once you take into account the rare occasion when more than one occupant sits an a motor vehicle. It would probably cost less than $557 million too.
But then, you’re forgetting about the service to downtown Portland – adding new lanes to the Banfield Freeway increases the cost quite a bit. Meanwhile, the light rail extension makes use of existing infrastructure – the existing blue line between Gateway and the Steel Bridge – to more efficient use.
And then, there’s this Urban Planning Overlord’s favorite word – CHOICE. A large segment of the U.S. population doesn’t have a car, either because they can’t afford it, or they aren’t physically able to drive a car. Throw in those who legally can’t drive, DUIs, younger teenagers, uninsurables, And many who have a car must give up some other essential of life to keep one. I guess the car-lovers of the world just want these people to sit home and die.
And how about transportation redundancy? If the I-205 or I-84 freeways are incapacitated, there is an alternative transportation mode available – not an extra freeway lane that will also be blocked.
And I’m not even bringing up even bigger and woollier concepts – air pollution, global warming, and funneling of money to crazed Saudi Arabian/Iranian jihadists and tinpot Latin American dictators.
It will cost $557 million and serve 47,000 riders daily on 6.5 miles of new track. It is really two projects, downtown Portland 5th and 6th Streets and I-205 from Gateway to Clackamas Town Center. It seems like a pretty good deal when compared to the $4,7 billion San Jose wants to spend to extend BART 16 miles to that city from Alameda County.
I’m sure the opponents will say it’s a waste of money, and call for new roads, or new lanes on existing roads, instead.
Weil, new roads aren’t cheap either. Look at the cost for 14 miles of Sunrise Corridor expressway from I-205 to Boring – about $900 million. And most of that is rural territory – who knows what the land costs would be for a new freeway through Portland in lieu of the MAX extension?
Of course, we could take that nice median in I-205 planned thirty years ago for a future light rail line and use it to add another lane to the freeway instead. That would probably serve 40,000 more cars a day – the equivalent of 47,000 riders once you take into account the rare occasion when more than one occupant sits an a motor vehicle. It would probably cost less than $557 million too.
But then, you’re forgetting about the service to downtown Portland – adding new lanes to the Banfield Freeway increases the cost quite a bit. Meanwhile, the light rail extension makes use of existing infrastructure – the existing blue line between Gateway and the Steel Bridge – to more efficient use.
And then, there’s this Urban Planning Overlord’s favorite word – CHOICE. A large segment of the U.S. population doesn’t have a car, either because they can’t afford it, or they aren’t physically able to drive a car. Throw in those who legally can’t drive, DUIs, younger teenagers, uninsurables, And many who have a car must give up some other essential of life to keep one. I guess the car-lovers of the world just want these people to sit home and die.
And how about transportation redundancy? If the I-205 or I-84 freeways are incapacitated, there is an alternative transportation mode available – not an extra freeway lane that will also be blocked.
And I’m not even bringing up even bigger and woollier concepts – air pollution, global warming, and funneling of money to crazed Saudi Arabian/Iranian jihadists and tinpot Latin American dictators.
posted by Urban Planning Overlord at 1:37 PM
6 Comments:
Note that the 6.5 miles figure is just for the route from Gateway to Clackamas TC.
The 44 blocks of reconstructed and new transit mall add more miles to the project. I recall that TriMet's official grand total was 8.3 miles.
Also included in the price tag is a new lane for autos (and bikes) along the full length of the mall, and the cost of pavement reconstruction for buses and sidewalk rehab, which would have occurred with or without light rail.
It is common for the price of light rail projects to reflect these other related projects, even though they would have happened at some point anyway. Keep that in mind when evaluating the total sticker.
- Bob R.
(Apologies if this generates multiple posts... the first two attempts did not seem to take...)
One other point: It is important to mention that the I-205 transitway corridor does NOT prevent future widening of I-205. There is plenty of room for both (which was the original plan), and if lanes need to be added, they can be. This is not a case of rail vs. roads.
- Bob R.
Thanks for your constructive comments, Bob R. We both agree this is a good deal. You've pointed out that it is an even better deal than I have propounded.
I take issue with your use of the word "choice." You fail to mention the following:
- A rapid transit bus system would be cheaper than the light rail line and would only partially contribute to the need for another freeway lane.
-No one can argue that rail offers more choice; unless of course your destination happens to be very close to a stop OR you have a lot of time to transfer to a bus an ride it slowly to your terminus.
The automobile and the bus provide the most choice and flexibility, period. Let the flame war begin.
Screwtape -
No flame war necessary... but BRT is not always less expensive than light rail for the same level of service.
It would cost as much to pave that I-205 transitway as it does to run tracks on it... much of the cost is for overpasses and other time-saving elements.
True, it is cheaper to run buses in shared lanes, but then the schedule is at the mercy of traffic conditions and you no longer have comparable service to LRT.
Further, although buses are cheaper, they last 1/3 as long as a LRV.
A two-car MAX train carries as many passengers at peak hour as 4.5 standard buses or 3 BRT-style buses. To provide the same level of service, BRT requires many more operators.
These operators could instead be allocated to provide better local bus service with frequent transfer to the higher-capacity rail line. In most scenarios, the distribution of service hours works out better for a rail-to-bus transfer system.
BRT only works for one-seat-rides if you happen to catch the one BRT bus that is going your way.
Consider:
Suppose you have a 5 mile trunk corridor (sort of like downtown to Gateway) and then branch out in 4 directions.
To serve the needs of the trunk corridor with 2-car trains operating 6 times an hour (10 min. headways) you'd need about 14 trains (allowing time for round trips and layovers at each end). That's 14 operator-hours per hour.
Suppose each of the 4 branches are served by buses, and each bus makes a round trip including layovers in an hour, and you want to have a bus departing every 10 minutes. That's 6 buses per branch, or 24 operator-hours per hour.
This system uses 38 operator hours per hour (at peak times). Worst-case transfer scenario: You have to wait the full 10 minutes for a train, and the full 10 minutes for a bus. Because of the built-in time for layovers, you at least get to sit on your bus during part of that wait. Median wait time: 10 minutes for train/bus combined.
Now, consider serving the entire thing with BRT buses offering one-seat rides.
To serve the same peak capacity on the trunk with articulated BRT-style buses requires up to 90 operator-hours per hour compared to 2-car trains, and we haven't even served our branches yet!
This assumes a BRT bus departing along the trunk every 3.3 minutes, and continuing on to serve one of the 4 branches. Thus, 1 in 4 buses serves your desired branch, or one bus every 13.2 minutes. Also, you have to include the operator hours for the branches. This scenario averages about 4.5 buses per hour per branch, so about 18 operator hours.
Total for BRT: 108 operator hours per hour. Worst-case wait time: 13.2 minutes. Median wait time: 7.6 minutes.
That's a 2.4 minute improvement over light rail, but at 2.8 times the operating labor cost! Further, those seeking to travel locally and not use the trunk portion of the service will have worse travel times because fewer buses per hour are actually serving the branches than in the light rail scenario.
So: 38 operator hours vs. 108 operator hours. With those 70 extra operator hours saved by light rail, we could more than double the frequency of our 4 branches, or better still, serve new areas, operate longer hours, how about serving 12 branches?
Those 70 operator hours add up. Granted, we are talking about peak periods, so lets say 5 total hours out of the weekday. Assuming a ballpark salary+benefit+admin cost of $50K per operator, you spend an extra $2.2 million per year on labor. Over a 30+ year lifespan for the rail system (some portions will last longer), there's $66 million dollars extra for BRT for basically the same level of service.
Capital costs for dedicated, paved, grade separated right-of-way is comparable to rail construction. Capital costs for buses are cheaper, but you'll have to buy at least 3X as many of them, and they last about 12 years so you'll have to buy them 2.5X. Thus, the super-deluxe articulated hybrid BRT bus has to cost 7.5X less than a 2-car light rail train. It does, but not by much.
- Bob R.
Further, although buses are cheaper, they last 1/3 as long as a LRV.
That is primarily not a functional lifespan, but an FRA mandated one. The 100 year old streetcars in a certain city I used to live in, they still work fine with minor maintenance done during the course of the years. The modern MAX LRVs could easily put in a 100 years of lifespan. If they did, the cost would be so far below that of other alternatives it would be scary that we don't have more of them running.
A two-car MAX train carries as many passengers at peak hour as 4.5 standard buses or 3 BRT-style buses. To provide the same level of service, BRT requires many more operators.
Ufortunately, over time, the largest cost of rail operations actually becomes the personel. So in a BRT system that cost would drastically exceed rail personnel costs. Hell, look at Amtrak, 3/5 of the cost of that rail service is personnel, NOT the actual trains (they make up about 1/5), and the rest is the trackage (1/5).
To serve the needs of the trunk corridor with 2-car trains operating 6 times an hour (10 min. headways) you'd need about 14 trains (allowing time for round trips and layovers at each end).
...and that is only what Portland's system can do. Light Rail built to full capacity (5 car trains) can more than exceed that. Without increasing the number of operators. Just increase the number of cars. Commuter rail of course is another example. Sound Transit just popped another car on two of its trains because of increasing demand (glad to see!)
Post a Comment
<< Home