Charlie and the MAX

Since fares are going up again  September 1, and in honor of Neal McFarlane officially taking over the helm of TriMet--it's time to recycle a little ditty posted to portlandtransport.com last year--updated (and up-spiced) to take recent events into account, and to better reflect (ahem) the local culture.  It's a satire of the infamous folk standard "M. T. A.", transplanted to the Portland area.  The song, originally written as a campaign tune for a left-wing Boston mayoral candidate, later became a big hit in 1959 for the Kingston Trio.  The band changed the name of the candidate in their version to avoid the appearance of endorsing a socialist politician, a big deal in the Red Scare area (even for a folk act).  Nowadays, the fare card used by the MBTA (as Boston's transit agency is now known) is called "CharlieCard" in honor of the tune.

The Portland version takes a bit of artistic license:  MAX uses of proof-of-payment rather than fare gates, and a zone system rather than any sort of exit fare collection.  And I doubt that bojack will be running for mayor, though the fireworks in City Hall were that to occur would be spectacular.  [Image courtesy of the Kinsgton Trio].

But anyhoo, here goes:

Let me tell you the story of a man named Charlie
And how he slipped through the city's cracks
He put two thirty in his pocket, kissed his live-in-lover
Went to ride on the Tri-Met MAX
Charlie bought himself a ticket at the Gateway Transit Center
And he changed at Pioneer Square
When he got there the inspector told him "one more nickel"
Charlie could not pay that fare!
And did he ever return, no he never returned
And his fate is still unlearned
He's doomed to ride forever on the rails of Portland
He's the man who never returned
Now all night long Charlie rides through the station
Thinking "What will become of me?"
"How can I afford to see my dealer in Gresham?
Or my bookie in Milwaukie?"
Charlie's girl goes down to the Rose Quarter station
Every day at quarter past two
And through the open window, she hands him a latte
As the train comes a-crawlin' through
Now commuters of Portland, isn't a scandal,
That the people have to pay the tax?
Fight the fare increase, vote for Jack Bogdanski
Help get Charlie off the Tri-Met MAX!
Or else he'll never return, no he'll never return
And his fate will be unlearned
He's doomed to ride forever on the rails of Portland
He's the man who never returned!

The Columbia River Crossing, and the role of state DOTs

[Image courtesy of CRC]

This blog, so far, has avoided serious comment about one of the most controversial projects being considered for the Portland metro area--the Columbia River Crossing.  Recently, I wrote about a blog comment concerning the advisability of adding MAX service to the project, in order to make a point in the bus/rail debate, but I haven't blogged about the CRC itself.  Now, it's time to correct that oversight.

The CRC project organization, which is jointly run by the Oregon and Washington Departments of Transportation (ODOT and WSDOT), recently published a proposed design for a replacement of the Interstate Bridge (an ancient pair of drawbridges which carry Interstate 5 over the Columbia River).  The price tag for the proposed design:  over US$4 billion.  Hardly anybody on either side of the river likes the proposed design, especially in the two cities (Portland, OR, and Vancouver, WA) which are directly affected by the project. 

The proposed design

The proposed design includes the following features:

• Rebuilding I-5 to modern design standards for about 5 miles--essentially from the Interstate Ave. interchange in Oregon, up to SR500 in Washington; this requires construction of quite a few C/D lanes and braided ramps and such.
• Three "through" auto lanes, and three "auxiliary" lanes, in each direction across the main span.  The auxiliary lanes are lanes which sooner or later you'll have to exit if you use them (though the freeway is always 8 lanes wide through the project area, except at the ends), while the "through" lanes are continuous.  On the main span of the bridge, all six lanes in each direction are on a single carriageway; there is no segregation into highway and C/D lanes.  (A recent revision to the proposal includes only 2 auxiliary lanes per direction rather than three, but keeps some of the other controversial features of the project)
• Below the highway lanes will be a facility for pedestrians and bicycles, and two "transit lanes", which will contain light rail.  (AFAIK, it will be trains only; not a combined rail/bus facility like the Caruthers bridge which is part of the Milwaukie MAX project).
• The impacts on Hayden Island, an island in the Columbia (part of Oregon, as it is south of the main channel) will be particularly server.  The I-5 interchange on the Island will be kept, but significantly redesigned.   Rather than the treacherous "trumpet" interchange (with short ramps) that currently sits there, a braided ramp confiuration will be added, which will also include ramp structures crossing the Columbia Slough for accessing Marine Drive and OR99E.  The effective footprint on Hayden Island will be 22 lanes.  As is the case today, road access to Hayden Island will require use of I-5. (The picture at the top of this post is an illustration of what this might look like--it appears that a giant aircraft carrier was parked in the middle of the island).

What's wrong?

Most people in the community recognize the need to do something.  The Interstate Bridge is functionally obsolete.  It's a major bottleneck for traffic, especially during the afternoon commute.  The connecting ramps are dangerous, particularly the onramps from Hayden Island onto I-5 north, and from SR14 onto I-5 south.  The pedestrian facilities on the existing are downright scary; there's no dedicated transit infrastructure at all, and the bridge must occasionally lift for river traffic.   And the combination of the drawspans of the Interstate Bridge, and the BNSF rail bridge a short distance downstream, make river navigation difficult for large vessels.  There's also some structural concerns:  although the bridges are not yet structurally obsolete, extensive work would be needed to bring them to modern structural standards.  There's a large consensus that the status quo is not acceptable.

But there's little agreement among local stakeholders (even ignoring the DOTs for now) on what needs to be done.  There is rampant sticker shock at the $4 billion pricetag on both sides of the river; and calls to scale back the design--but the sticking point is just what ought to be removed.

We don't need no stinking freeway

Many in Portland's transit and urbanist communities view the Interstate Bridge as an important chokepoint with which to discourage automobile use, and don't want to see any highway capacity added, other than what's absolutely necessary for safety.  Portland's urbanistas, while disliking suburbia in general, hold special disdain for the community across the river which is often derisively called "Vantucky" (and worse), and viewed as a gaping loophole in Oregon's land use laws (and Metro's implementation thereof).  Expanding freeway capacity into The Couv (what Vancouverites often call their city--a term which has the added benefit of only referring to Vancouver, WA and not Vancouver, BC; a persistently annoying ambiguity in the Pacific Northwest) would only encourage more urban sprawl across the river, they say, and the sort of capital flight that has devastated many cities elsewhere in the country.  (More than a few would be happy if the Interstate Bridge were to fall down into the river).

Another concern that Oregonians have, and one less politically sensitive, is the concern that widening the bridge will simply move the southbound bottleneck on I-5 a few miles further south, into downtown Portland--necessitating a costly rebuild of Portland's downtown core.  (In the Rose Quarter area, I-5 reduces to only two lanes in each direction).   And the eastbank freeway, as I-5 is known in downtown, is highly unpopular, and a favorite target of urbanists who would prefer to see it buried (or removed altogether).

We don't need no stinking tolls

Across the river, many in Vancouver naturally resent being viewed as Portland's Oakland.  Vancouverites, like many suburban-dwellers, don't consider their chosen lifestyle to be illegitimate in the least.  Many consider the problems of cities to be the problems of cities--not their concern.  And many in Vancouver are openly skeptical about Portland's famously liberal political consensus (and recently, famously dysfunctional city politics).   They aren't terribly interested in Portland's transit system or enviro-urbanist agenda--and are primarily concerned about the cost of the project.  This is especially important on the Washington side since tolls are a significant part of the proposed funding package.  Vancouver residents enjoy an advantageous tax situation, in that Washington has no state income tax (and very low property taxes), financing government primarily through sales taxes; whereas Oregon has no sales tax.  Thus many Vancouverites cross the river to shop in Oregon.  (Many also work in the Beaver State; though those who do are subject to Oregon state income tax).  Tolling is seen as an unfair surcharge on those who live on the north side of the river; and thus many Vancouverites see reducing the scope of the project--and thus the cost--as a key priority.  (The recent mayoral election in Vancouver turned on the question of bridge tolls; with the incumbent mayor losing re-election to a candidate who focuses on the issue of tolling).

The prospect of tolls also brings about concerns that traffic would be simply shifted to the Glenn Jackson bridge instead; particularly N/S through traffic, and traffic from the E. Vancouver area.    Tolling I-205 was proposed as a solution to this issue (the Glenn Jackson bridge, about seven miles upstream, is not part of the project); however it seems to be the opinion that this is not legally permissible.   This state of affairs in Clackamas County, to Portland's south, worried.

The result of this is that many in Portland want to see the highway features of the design reduced in scope.  A popular alternate proposal is for a seismic retrofit of the existing bridges, removal of many of the interchanges (including the dangerous Hayden Island ramps), and construction of a "supplemental bridge" which would connect Vancouver's downtown street network with Hayden Island and Portland streets such as MLK and Interstate, and provide transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities.  Many in Vancouver, OTOH, want the highway capacity, and would just as soon jettison the light rail lines--noting that the tracks would only go a short distance into Vancouver.

The devil's in the DOTails

If the issue were merely a disagreement between two cities (located in two different states) on urban vision, that would be one thing.  But the two state DOTs, who are responsible for maintaining I-5 and have been managing the project, seem determined to build a big megafreeway.  A common allegation is that the acceptance criteria set forth in the purpose and need statement were carefully crafted to exclude any solution other than a big megafreeway, and as a result--a big megafreeway is what the engineers came up with.   And now, the DOTs are (allegedly) playing "chicken" with the project--claiming that it's too late to make any material changes, lest the funding window for federal dollars close (the project is slated to receive funding from USDOT's Corridors of the Future program).  The city of Portland, in particular, is calling that bluff; and actually hired its own engineering firm to review the project.  Metro has been challenging the state DOTs in unusually blunt language as well, with outgoing Metro president David Bragdon suggesting that the CRC project team "get real". 

The project's design is severely constrained by several other factors:  the need to maintain a Columbia River shipping channel compatible with the BNSF rail bridge a short distance downstream, and the need to not affect the flight paths going in and out of Pearson Airpark in Vancouver (and to a lesser extent, PDX).   Until recently, Portland mayor Sam Adams also stressed the need for a "signature design" (a demand that the bridge be architecturally significant), a position that struck many as self-aggrandizement and placement of form over function--especially given the height restrictions which prevent the construction of towering arches or suspension systems.  (The proposed design, with box/girder construction, has also been criticized for being ugly).  As Adams has been politically weakened by a sex scandal, this concern has faded to the background, but still lingers.


A major issue with having state DOTs maintaining urban infrastructure, is that many of them are institutionally programmed to the "mobility" side of the mobility-access continuum.  Despite the multi-modal nature suggested by the name "department of transportation"; the primary responsibility for DOTs in most US states is building, maintaining, and regulating highways, often focused on smooth and timely passage of freight.  Other modes of regional or long-haul transportation--aviation, railroads, and navigation (whether on inland waterways or at sea) have long been primarily overseen by the Federal government, as are interstate motor carriers.  Local transportation links (including transit), on the other hand are generally handled by local communities.  Building highways is what DOTs are best at; and this role emphasizes throughput and mobility over local concerns such as access and community integration.  A big problem with freeways, generally, is that many of them don't really serve the communities they pass through; instead they simply disrupt them. 


It should be noted that this state of affairs exists despite having relatively transit-friendly administrations in Salem and Olympia.  Democrats occupy the governor's office in both Oregon and Washington, and control the legislatures of both states as well.  While both states have bicameral legislatures (the norm in the United States); both the upper and lower legislative houses in the two states are allocated based on population, not political subdivision.  (Many state Senates, as well as the US Senate;The US Senate assigns equal representation to political subdivisions regardless of population; a state of affairs which allows rural interests to dominate; for example, Alaska and New York each have the same number of US Senators--two). 


The good news

This project is a classic case of the paralysis that can result when state-level entities such as DOTs manage urban infrastructure projects.  The CRC is a particularly complex case, involving DOTs, MPOs, transit authorities, counties, and cities from two states and not just one.  Given that the project crosses a navigable waterway, is in close proximity to two airports, and even lies adjacent to a national park facility (Fort Vancouver); there are numerous Federal agencies involved as well, including several beyond the usual suspects.  There are many different players, all with different goals for the project, all playing hardball, and no supervising organization with the capability (or the authority) to solve the political conflicts necessary to generate reasonable requirements that are acceptable.   (Kind of reminds me of healthcare reform, actually).  Right now, many of the parties are perfectly happy to not cooperate, and to threaten to block any proposal which doesn't meet their specific needs.  (An ODOT official was actually quoted stating that Portland wouldn't be permitted to expand light rail across the Columbia unless as part of a larger highway project; and of course many in Portland hold the same attitude in reverse towards freeway expansion).

Whether this circle can be successfully squared remains to be seen.  The good news is that the DOTs are starting to get the message, so there's hope that a reasonable design can be produced.  OTOH, even if the DOTs let the two cities and their respective MPOs take the lead, there's bound to be friction given the apparent clash in values.

[Edited for correction as noted in comments]

An inversion of the usual bus/rail assumptions?

On a thread at portlandtransport.com discussing the Columbia River Crossing, a controversial project to replace the Interstate Bridge between Portland, OR and Vancouver, WA, there was a rather interesting comment.  Like many of the threads on this subject over at that fine blog, this one turned to one of the key design features being debated: light rail.  The current $4 billion proposal, as well as numerous scaled-down proposals coming from the Portland side, all call for the MAX Yellow Line to be extended across the river into downtown Vancouver.  (The current proposal doesn't have MAX going very far into the Couv, which is far less densely populated--and more politically conservative--than the Oregon side; and the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council has selected BRT rather than rail for its future rapid transit backbone).  Many on the Vancouver side, frankly, don't care one whit about light rail and would just as soon that it stay in Oregon (though a recent survey may challenge that assumption).  There's a whole host of other nasty stereotypes and accusations being bandied about by activists on both sides, which I won't repeat here; about the only thing that is agreed on is that the $4 billion proposal, promoted by both states' departments of transportation, is unacceptable.

Commenter Anandakos, a Vancouver resident who is not an anti-transit shill by any means, had this to say:

I'm a 64 year old white guy I/T person who has short hair and showers daily. The middle aged women who are the majority of riders on the Clark County expresses are resentful when I or any other guy like me sits down next to them in an empty seat on the 199 or 105. They only want to sit with other women.

And you expect them to ride down Interstate Avenue with the boom boxes and winos? Get real and get a life! If their express buses are taken away they WILL drive to work.

Anandakos made several other technical arguments concerning MAX service to Vancouver which are not relevant here, go read the thread if you're interested (his comment is the first after the post).

The thing I wanted to highlight is that this is an inversion of the usual state of affairs in bus/rail debates.  Anandakos is positing the existence of a class of choice transit users--in the United States--who are willing to ride a bus line but would abandon transit were it replaced with rail.  Usually, it's assumed that choice riders--and the riders Anandakos describes are choice riders, as they have the option to drive--prefer rail to bus.  Here, it is being claimed that a group of riders prefer the bus.

The 199 and 105 lines which C-Tran (Vancouver's transit agency) runs between Vancouver and Portland, aren't just any busses.  They're express busses which spend the bulk of their time on Interstate 5, not stopping anywhere other than the Portland transit mall and a few transit centers in Vancouver.  Not only that, but they're state-of-the-art Gillig hybrids, with nice interiors more reminiscent of a motor coach--ample amounts of plush seating, personal lights, etc.   The following video, courtesy of punkrawker, demostrates the C-Tran express routes.



Not all busses in C-Tran's fleet are as nice; these vehicles are mainly found on the express routes.


MAX light rail, of course, is MAX.  The Yellow Line generally uses newer trains, but the on-board amenities are spartan, and during rush hour, many of the trains are standing-room only.  MAX generally doesn't get stuck in traffic (which can happen to the express busses), but the trains do stop fairly frequently, whereas the bus runs nonstop between Portland and Vancouver.  In addition, some of the neighborhoods which the Yellow Line passes through (and the C-Tran express pass) by are the sort which some suburban ladies may prefer to avoid.   I pass no judgment myself, of course, and it would be inaccurate to characterize the area as blighted (or worse)--but for those who live on in suburbia because they want to avoid interacting with others of different cultural backgrounds (ahem), a ride on the Yellow Line might be disconcerting.  Like it or not, for many commuters, not having to mingle with those they consider undesirable is a key driver of their transport mode choice.


At any rate, if Anandakos' anecdote is true, it just goes to show that the social acceptability (and perceived safety) of a transit line has to do with many more factors than what sort of wheels are underneath it.  The neighborhoods it calls on, and the amenities offered on board, have as much to do with it--even if one considers that steel wheels can enable a smoother ride than rubber tires on pothole-specked pavement.

[copyedited -- es]

Five Questions about Milwaukie MAX

Next year, ground will be broken on the next extension to Portland's MAX system--a new light rail line running from Portland State University to Milwaukie. The line is scheduled to open in 2015. This will be the sixth major MAX project for the Portland metro area.  The line, as currently planned, will add over 7 miles of new tracks, including a new green bridge (serving MAX, busses, Portland Streetcar, emergency vehicles, bikes, and pedestrians) across the Willamette River, south of the Marquam Bridge, and 10 new stops (two on the west side, 8 on the east side of the river). TriMet projections indicate 27,000 new trips by the year 2030.

The project's Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is due in the next few months--possibly as soon as this month (May).  While we wait for that, I have five questions about Milwaukie MAX.  Some of them are innocuous, some of them are loaded for bear:

(For those interested, an old discussion of this topic from two years ago is at portlandtransport.com)


What color is it?  Orange, Yellow, Green--or something else?

The line is frequently referred to, in many informal circles, as the Orange Line--probably in part due to the planning map to the right (courtesy of TriMet) which shows the new line in orange.  Whether or not this is the actual proposed color of the line (indicating it's a distinct service from the four existing lines), or it ends up being an extension of the Yellow or Green lines (the latter seems like an unlikely scenario, but the former makes a lot of sense, given TriMet's longstanding desire to have a north-south trunk line), hasn't yet been announced.  It may well be undecided at this point.

My preference would be for the line to be a Yellow extension--while longer lines have reliability problems, an Oak Grove to Expo through line wouldn't be long enough to worry about--it would still pale in comparison to the present Blue Line.  Through-routing has numerous advantages, including increasing the number of places you can go without a transfer, and adding similar value to whatever line is extended south.

One other piece of evidence which suggests against an extended Yellow Line:  The table on page 95 of this document, listing the proposed traffic loads on the new Caruthers Bridge, suggests 8 trains at peak hour, which is twice what the Yellow currently runs.  Also, there's the little matter of the the PSU/Union shuttle, which may well be a placeholder for future Orange trains.  (One other possibility--it's a dual-colored line, with some Orange trains ending downtown, and Yellows continuing on to N. Portland).

Why does it cost so much money?

 Many of the numbers associated with the project sounds good.  Here's one that doesn't:  $1.4 billion.  That's how much the think is projected to cost.

Put your pinky to your mouth, draw breath through your teeth, and repeat that in your best Dr Evil voice:

"One point four BEEEELYUN dollars".

Or, about $200 million a mile.  $200 million was almost the cost of the entire initial MAX line from Portland to Gresham--of course, that was 1980s money.  More recently, British Columbia built the Canada Line extension to Vancouver's SkyTrain system--nearly 12 miles (20km) in total length, and entirely grade-separated (elevated in Richmond and near the airport, a subway in Vancouver itself)--the price tag of that was about CAN$2 billion.  Even at the current strength of the loonie (this morning, US$1 was about CAN$1.03), that's a much lower price per mile.  (Or kilometer).

Much of the Milwaukie line will be grade-separated, such as the stretch from Riverplace or thereabouts to the new bridge, and much of the route along the UPRR.  And some property acquisition will be needed in the OMSI area.  The Canada Line was criticized for being built on the cheap--in particular, the cut-and-cover construction techniques annoyed many.

But still--despite the fact that a lot of the money comes from Uncle Sam, it's still a pretty steep price tag; and one which will attract lots of opposition.


When will it reach Oregon City?

One of my main criticisms of the Milwaukie MAX project is the "Milwaukie" part.  Not that it goes there; but that it ends there (Oak Grove, more specifically).  The project, ultimately, needs to run the entire length of one of TriMet's most important transit corridors.

It needs to go to Oregon City.

I'm not complaining, too much. Half a line is better than none, and we don't live an a universe of unlimited funding.  Milwaukie is an important destination (Oak Grove, OTOH...)  The OR99E corridor currently has lots of busses running up and down it, and has sufficient volume for light rail. However, for the line to reach its true potential--it needs to reach Oregon City.

Unlike many of the other lines in the system, which have freeways in the vicinity, Milwaukie MAX is not competing with any freeway.  This is even more so south of Milwaukie, where OR99E (McLoughlin Boulevard) is an urban boulevard with tons of traffic lights slowing motorists down.  

There are quite a few valid reasons why a line only to Milwaukie (actually, to Oak Grove, an unincorporated community just south of Milwaukie) is a reasonable project. For one thing, money is an issue. For another thing, the route to Oregon City is undecided--for more discussion of this, see the next question. For a third, there's also the potential of a Clackamas-to-Tigard line in the future, crossing the river near Milwaukie or Lake Oswego, bisecting the Milwaukie line (or even forming part of its extension).

But if you drive down Main Street in Oregon City, past the courthouse and the elevator, there are still tracks embedded in the road (tracks which are occasionally used by trains switching in the Blue Heron paper mill), and other visible remnants of the old Portland Traction line that once tied Portland to Oregon City. Four separate bus lines depart Oregon City and head downtown. The #33 is one of TriMet's most frequently used lines, and were MAX to substantially reduce the amount of time it takes to ride downtown (currently, almost an hour), the value of the project to commuters would grow tremendously.

By not reaching the end of the Oregon Trail, the line really isn't finished.

How will it reach Oregon City, and where will it go when it eventually gets there?

Here, I'm asking the 35,000 foot corridor question--not looking for a specific alignment.  But on Metro's long range high-capacity transit map, two possible routes to Oregon city are indicated--an alignment through Oak Grove and Gladstone, roughly along the OR99E corridor, or an alignment from Milwaukie along the Lake Road/OR224 corridor to Clackamas, then following I-205 to Oregon City.  The decision to terminate the current project in Oak Grove suggests a 99E routing is more likely--this route would serve more established communities--albeit some rather low-density areas; as McLoughlin south of Milwaukie is a notorious sprawlevard.  A Clackamas routing passes through some green and brownfields, possibly giving more opportunities for TOD, but might negatively impact the existing Green Line.
One other possibility for reaching Oregon City that would be a bad idea, would be to simply extend the Green Line.  While doing so might not be entirely bad, as part of a larger system, it would stink for OC commuters trying to reach downtown, or vice versa--depending on where you were headed, the existing bus service would be faster.

The main important destinations in Oregon City are probably the downtown area (including the OC Transit Center), the OC Shopping Center, and Clackamas Community College (including the CCC Transit Center, where TriMet interchanges with Canby and South Clackamas transit districts.  CCC would be a fine anchor--but it's located at the top of the hill in Oregon City, getting MAX up there might be an interesting engineering problem.

Getting MAX into downtown OC, in particular the courthouse and elevator areas, would also be interesting, albeit for a different reason--there's only two blocks between the river and the bluff on which everything (OR99E, the UPRR mainline, and numerous buildings) are sandwhiched.

How effective will it be, given its location between OR 99E and the UPRR mainline?

View Larger Map
One other criticism of the line concerns its location.  For much of the length, the Milwaukie line lies between OR99E, and the UPRR tracks.  North of Holgate, the line passes through the Brooklyn neighborhood, which will probably generate an adequate number of trips.  South of that, the line is literally between the highway and the tracks.
When the Green Line opened, it received some criticism for it's freeway adjacent routing--chiefly on the grounds that having a freeway on one side of the tracks limited development opportunities.  Freeways are generally unattractive to live close to, and because the freeway is a barrier to pedestrian access--even if an overcrossing or undercrossing is provided.  Others in the transit community have defended freeway routing.  The Milwaukie Line, in the stretch between Milwaukie TC and Holgate, will essentially have two such barriers, one on each side of the line.  The stations along this stretch (Bybee and Tacoma Street) will be center-island stations accessed from overpasses; getting to and from the station requires use of stairs or an elevator.  Sounds pleasant?

Of course, this is the same essential configuration as the Blue/Red/Green line between Lloyd Center and Gateway.  That line is sandwiched between a freeway and a freight line, and accessed from above--yet it is a very successful part of the system.  Here, station spacing is wide, and MAX functions more like a metro than like a tram.  Perhaps similar success will be met on the Milwaukie line.
Or perhaps not.  The Lloyd/Gateway stretch passes through a rather dense part of inner Portland, with numerous overcrossings of the line (including many without stations), and development which comes very close to the trench containing the freeway and the tracks.  And, the section is a trunk of the MAX system, with the three lines branching out at Gateway. 

For the Milwaukie stretch, crossings of the tracks and highway are much rarer, the distances involved to reach development are much wider, and the development that exists is far less dense (including uses such as a golf course and a large public park).  Whether or not the line will attract riders from destinations such as Reed College or Westmoreland remains to be seen.  Also, rather than being a trunk in the system, the line as presently planned more resembles a branch--it would be as if the eastside MAX line ended at Gateway, rather than branching off there.


Epilogue

In a forthcoming post, I'll have five more questions about the project--if we're lucky, perhaps the EIS will be released for public scrutiny.