May 19, 2004

City Council Approves Conceptual Design Report For Transit Mall

Directs Office of Transportation To Pursue Next Steps

transit_mall_auto_access_diagram-thumb.jpg
Transit Mall Auto Access Diagram (Click To Enlarge)

This evening, the Portland City Council passed a resolution adopting the final conceptual design report for the intended revitalization of the downtown transit mall.

It would seem that the watchword for the revitalization project at its current stage is "consensus." There seems to be a general alignment of support for the intended placement of light rail along the transit mall, and for the important concepts of "urban rooms" and "station as place" that will inform the design of the stops, stations, and sidewalks along the mall.

That consensus put aside, there were some questions raised by agencies such as the General Services Administration, which operates the Pioneer Courthouse and for concerns of security would have preferred the left-side station option rather than the right-side station option contained within the CDR. As it stands, GSA is urging that no structures be used at the stations stops outside the Courthouse along SW 6th Avenue, and seemed to also urge the removal of trees in that area. They pitched these as ways to "celebrate the connection" between Pioneer Courthouse and Pioneer Courthouse Square. Left unclear is why there's no problem with there being existing structures -- the bus shelters -- in that location today.

A representative of the business community whose name we missed also questioned the inclusion of bicyclists and rollerbladers in what they had originally believed would be an "auto lane" on the left-hand side, arguing that the point of an auto lane was to increase retail access for drivers, and that bicyclists and rollerbladers would not be participating in this. We're unsure if his position, then, would be to ban bicyclists and rollerbladers from the transit mall, but that seems to be the only other option.

There may have been other objections, but we watched this hearing online while also doing various other things, and so it's entirely possible that we simply didn't catch them. But the hearing in the balance leaned very heavily in the direction of the aforementioned consensus.

At this point, the conceptual design report presents a four-pronged approach to implementation of the transit mall revitalization project which intends to "expand beyond bricks and mortar and light rail tracks to embrace transportation, urban design, social and economic objectives that will assure that the Mall is even more successful in the next 25 years than it has been over the previous 25."

Testimony included some on Great Pedestrian & Transit Streets analysis conducted by by Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Partnership.

Interested parties should read that analysis, if they have not done so already, because it thankfully appears to have informed how the process has been, and will continue to be, guided. Many of those who testified referenced this analysis, and repeatedly suggested that its precepts and observations helped the various groups working on various aspects of the project contextualize the issues in ways that led them to solutions they otherwise might not have discovered.

Commissioner Francesconi voted in favor of the resolution, calling the transit mall the "main artery here that sustains the energy and vitality of our downtown" and the revitalization plan "one of the best projects of our last twenty years."

Commissioner Randy Leonard voted in favor of the resolution, without comment.

Commissioner Dan Saltzman voted in favor of the resolution, calling the plan "truly visionary" and an "exciting project," and lauding the extension of light rail to the "next logical destination" of Portland State University.

Commissioner Erik Sten voted in favor of the resolution, calling it a "terrific conceptual design."

Mayor Vera Katz voted in favor of the resolution, after taking a moment to thank Francesconi and Leonard for coming to wortk early and staying late after a long night.

The resolution adopted this evening by City Council directs the Office of Transportation (PDOT)to: work with the Office of Management and Finance to prepare a finance plan for the City's portion of the proposed finance plan for the project; work with TriMet, City bureaus, and various relevant commissions to develop an engineering report; prepare a status report on the strategy to increase public and private stewardship of the transit mall; and prepare a status report on redevelopment strategies, transit operation, and transportation strategy. It also requests that TriMet explores new bus technologies to reduce noise and odor.

According to the CDR, the proposed funding for the project includes $96 million from the Federal Transit Administration, $5 million from TriMet, $5 million from Metro, and $50 million from the City of Portland, including $10 million in urban renewal funds, $15 million from bonding of new on-street parking meter revenues, $5 million from public utility contributions, $15 million from a local improvement district, and $5 million from Portland State University.

Posted at 07:49 PM | PermalinkComments (15) | TrackBacks (1)
More In Design & Development, Livability

« Previous Next »

Comments (15)

  1. Isaac Laquedem on 19 May 2004

    The Mall may be the City's central transit artery, but businesses would question its merit; compare the retail along 5th and 6th with the retail along Broadway and 4th. I recall that shortly after the Mall opened, Meier & Frank walled up its doors to 5th and 6th, and other retailers closed or moved. Some of this was part of the trend of retail moving from downtown to the suburbs, but some of it -- I think -- was the result of the Mall.

  2. The One True b!X on 19 May 2004

    Well, for whatever it's worth, the business interests involved in this process appear in the main to be part of the consensus that was constructed for the project.

  3. Worldwide Pablo on 19 May 2004

    In Portland, no one can hear you scream.

  4. Jack Bog on 19 May 2004

    Call me a grouchy old coot, but I think the mall is fine the way it is, we have enough light rail for a long time, and this is just another waste of money.

    One seldom-acknowledged reason that downtown shopping is off is that there's now retail in places like the Pearl that weren't there before. Ripping up the mall for a long period isn't going to help.

  5. Craig on 20 May 2004

    I feel the mall is fine as is. 3rd and 4th have the small sidewalks, no street trees and on street parking that the business crowd so loves and both those streets are a mess. Both have much more empty storefronts and just and overall trashy feel. People should walk the mall some time. It has a few empty store fronts, but its by far better then 3rd and 4th. I'm not really sure why a unique urban environment has to be sacrificed because a business lobby does not have the ability to think beyond auto access. The businss communities anwswer to every problem is "just add parking" with no regard for the urban environment. Maybe the city would be better served with spending a few million dollars getting new business voices with the ability to understand cities to replace the group now who would be better served filling spaces in the subburbs. They just don't seem to understand city life.

  6. Bob R. on 20 May 2004

    The comments of the GSA / Homeland Security representative were, well, a bombshell.

    That the GSA would oppose shelters (and also generally oppose light rail adjacent to the courthouse) is a new topic that did not come up in any of the hearings I attended. It has only come up now that a general acceptance (if not a consensus) of a plan has formed.

    Suppose planners go along with the GSA and omit structures from the stops? Well, these two new stations are going to be the busiest stations in the whole line, because of the retail activity, proximity to Pioneer Courthouse Square, and as a transfer point to east/west MAX.

    It will be a daily insult to riders, having to wait in the wind and rain at the busiest stop.

    It can only result in a reduction of overall ridership, and a resentment from those who must ride and must use that station.

    The GSA got their beloved driveway and underground parking. Now they want to banish transit altogether.

    (Oh, and banish restrooms, too...)

    Why don't they just move the 9th circuit to the big Federal Courthouse? There is _plenty_ of square footage in that building, and secure parking already.

    Bring back the post office and rent out the rest of pioneer courthouse as prime office space and coffee shops.

    - Bob

  7. Alexander Craghead on 20 May 2004

    Right Side platforms? Ack! These are the ones that will have MAX trains weaving side to side to go from the middle of the road over to the platform, to the middle of the road to the platform, to the middle of the road....

    I do look forward to MAX in a N-S alignment because it will link Union Station to downtown much better than the current buses, which never seem to be there when you want them, but are always there when you don't.

    However....

    I still think that this is an idea that is going to have some bad bad bad results. How long before a bus smacks a MAX? I don't think they can co-exist, especially considering how fast and loose many of the drivers are about pulling in and out to stops.

    Now, Tri-Met could restrict them by saying, "no passing on the mall anymore, just line up and file in single file", but the results will be that you'll have to wait ten or fifteen minutes while you can see your bus three blocks away.

    Also unclear is how this alignment accesses both the Steel Bridge, and the Blue Line to Hillsboro. The latter I assume could be handled by some kind of junction at 5th and 6th and Yamhill and Morrison streets, but the approach to the bridge is a whole other kettle of fish.

    As for the GSA, pardon my French but screw them. They didn't care what Portlanders thought about turning the courthouse into a parking garage, I see no reason for us to give them consideration as we build our tranportation system.

  8. tim on 20 May 2004

    First it lookes like the link to the analysis on Tri-met’s site b!X linked to is broken, so I couldn’t read the report.

    Yesterday while riding a c-tran express bus, I heard a comment that I hear a lot from people who actually USE the public transit system as their main form of transportation (I believe b!X you are in this group). Essentially the comment goes like this: “I hate light rail through downtown Portland. It is too slow. It takes forever to travel across downtown. I prefer to take buses when possible. I wish there were more express buses.”

    Now I have to agree with these sentiments. If you are using light rail to travel to the west or east sides of downtown, i.e. outside the fair-less district, light rail is OK. However though downtown and loyd light rail just doesn’t seem to work that well.

    And hence, the reason I am posting here, why the heck are we putting another light rail extension downtown? Particularly when you can already get around downtown on public transit (PT) just fine right now. We have a lot of issues with the current PT system, however none of them are related to getting around downtown. Not to mention the fact that the low value streetcar already runs through downtown to PSU.

    I must ask myself, do any of the people making decisions ride public transit, even if only once to better understand the PT system? At the least is someone who actually uses the PT system advising the decision makers? I am not sure how or if Tri-met tracks quality of service in the PT system, but it seems that one of the major complaints I hear form the tri-met riding public is that light rail doesn’t work downtown. I know about the bus noise issue, and that still doesn't justify putting in light rail on the transit mall. Yet putting more light rail downtown is the core of the mall revitalization plan.

    Huh?!?

  9. The One True b!X on 20 May 2004

    I'd also be inclined to tell the GSA to stuff it. Their routine habit of swaggering around about this building and what they demand for it, utterly unconcerned with the fact that as a building it means infinitely more to us than it does to them or their judges, has long since grown stale and tired.

  10. Bob R. on 20 May 2004

    A response to Tim:

    I too am concerned about the efficiency of light rail through downtown, as were a number of people who testified at meetings about the new mall plans.

    While not totally satisfied, I feel the mall proposal addresses some of the efficiency concerns.

    The current east/west alignment has too many stops which are too close together. Three stops in a row are just 2 blocks apart. With each stop, the train must wait one additional cycle of the traffic light, rather than travelling with the grid. Modification or elimination of stops along the east/west alignment should be considred, and I have pushed for this in meetings.

    However, the new mall alignment is an improvement over this. Trains will stop on average every 4 or 5 blocks, and move with the traffic light flow.

    Busses, which currently stop every 2 blocks, will also be moved to a 4-block pattern, considerably improving bus performance on the mall.

    The downside? If you want to catch a bus or train, you will have to walk further. (But not 4 blocks, as some have complained. On the mall, you will never be more than 2 blocks travel from your bus stop or train platform, with a couple of exceptions.)

    Really, the only way to ensure faster, higher-capacity service is to bite the budget bullet and construct a subway. I believe we will have to do this eventually, but unfortunately there is very little public support for such an idea right now.

    You mention express busses. The problem with express busses is that they are very expensive to operate - they serve only a limited number of passengers compared to a bus with frequent stops, and one bus operator per bus has to serve that limited number of people.

    Light rail, with limited stops but more stops than an express bus, is a compromise. One operator/vehicle serves many more people both in terms of maximum load and in passengers per route mile.

    Rail is very expensive to construct, especially in areas where the right-of-way wasn't rail-oriented in the past, but once constructed the operating costs per passenger are actually lower than busses. It takes several decades for this equation to balance out, however.

    - Bob

  11. Justin on 20 May 2004

    I think the City Council will take great delight in telling GSA to "stuff it."

  12. Scott Peterson on 20 May 2004

    An I reading that map right? It looks like there will be no way to approach the Civic Auditorium (or whatever we call it now) from 26. Now we come down Market, but on that map we can't cross 6th on Market.

    I know we could take Max there instead, but from Hillsboro it's just too slow.

    Maybe the report explains this. It's taking forever to download.

  13. Bob R. on 20 May 2004

    From my reading of the map, and from much better maps shown on big tables at the public meetings, you CAN cross 6th via Market.

    What is being eliminated is the right turn from 6th to Market. If you are coming down Market from further up, you can still cross 6th.

    By the way, these right turns that are being eliminated, are a direct consequence of having tracks on the right. And the _only_ reason we are having tracks on the right is so that there can be an auto lane down the full length of the mall.

    So the cars lose some and win some.

    (I'm neutral on the issue of the auto lane, but lately I'm coming to believe it may help a lot in some ways, but at the cost of a significant loss of pedestrian environment.)

    - Bob

  14. tim on 20 May 2004

    Bob,

    Thanks for clarifying the light rail issue. I am still having trouble understanding why lgiht rail though. Cars, buses, and light rail on the same street seems like a recipe for confusion and accidents to me, but I have't had a chance to read the report yet, and clearly I am not as well versed on the plans as you are.

    C-tran runs many express buses between downtown portland and various suburban transit centers and is talking about cutting many of them if a tax measure in Clark county doesn't pass in November. I know enough about Clark county to know they will be cutting express buses come November.

    I wish my company would move some where sensible, like anywhere easy to get to using public transit.

  15. Alexander Craghead on 20 May 2004

    Tim & All:

    I am also one of those who use transit as a main way of getting around. Here are my thoughts on your comments gleaned on C-Tran:

    I hate light rail through downtown Portland. It is too slow. It takes forever to travel across downtown.

    Agreed. It is way too slow, and I can sometimes walk faster than wait for a train and then catch it. What is more annoying is that I often take Light Rail crosstown from Beaverton or Pioneer to get to Gresham. The time it takes to get from Goose Hollow (or Pioneer as the case may be) and 11th/Lloyd is just unbearable.

    I prefer to take buses when possible.

    This I don't agree with. Busses are noise, smelly, and cramped. They often run behind schedule and take way too many stops. When I want to go home on the 12 -- which i did today -- the endless stop after stop after stop just getting from Pioneer to Barbur Blvd ia aggrivating as hell. I much prefer the bright, open, clean, smooth running light rail.

    I wish there were more express buses.

    Agree, and disagree. I'd rather seem more park and rides and the 12 given the 94's limited express schedule, but I wouldeven more so like to see the Brown Line become a reality. I would never ride the bus from Dowtown to Gresham, but riding MAX to there is a piece of cake. Many who are similarly non-transit oriented also prefer light rail to busses.

    As for why more light rail? Simple, we need more downtown capacity. Currently the Blue Line is wildy sucessful, and the Red Line is extended to Beaverton as well. However, there just aren't enough "blocks" -- sections of track that can be occupied by a train safely, without striking another -- downtown to handle the load.

    For crosstown traffic there is only one solution, and it is not a subway, as that is way more money that we'll ever be able to choke up, and also presents a host of safety and ridership issues. Rather, the plan being talked about by design personnel is to construct a downtown bypass for through trains. I don't know where it would go officially, but my best guess based on what I know about the Orange Line plans, is that it would extend from the west foot of the new Caruthers Street Bridge to I-405, and then folliw the freeway somehow to get to the current blue line at where it crosses the freeway now. On the east side, the tracks would most likely leave the Orange Line near OMSI and travel north either on 2nd or 3rd.

Trackbacks (1)

  1. Hopeless on 20 May 2004

    Million-Dollar Jim Francesconi spent yesterday morning telling reporters how he's going to portray himself in the general election as an agent of change. Then he went back inside City Hall and voted tens of millions of tax dollars (including $10...