Comments on: …but we don’t need mass transit…

By: Oran

Oran — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 04:02:17 +0000

I think maintaining our current highway infrastructure is just as important as build badly needed mass transit. If the Ship Canal Bridge or any major bridge in this region failed, it would affect our economy whether we have light rail or not. The key is having the choices and variety of modes to use.

There’s a post on Streetsblog with a chart showing cumulative capital investment in Transit and Highways since 1956. Highways have received 9-13 times more funding than transit (not surprising).

By: Ben Schiendelman

Ben Schiendelman — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 00:55:31 +0000

Highway modernization isn’t generally a winning investment at this point. The construction greatly reduces capacity for a short term, and only slightly increases capacity in the longer term. Usually there are better uses of the money.

By: John Jensen

John Jensen — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 04:22:49 +0000

I don’t know if this is exactly what you mean, but ST Link has (federally mandated) cross-overs every few miles or so.

I spoke to a planner and the idea is if one direction is unable to use its tracks, central command will be able to switch it to the other direction’s tracks. Obviously this will slow down the whole system, but the system should still move along.

By: runnerodb83

runnerodb83 — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 03:19:43 +0000

I was on BART this morning and there was a problem, however, there are many cross-overs on the the BART tracks and “fluff” built into the schedules (like bus layovers) that allow BART to adjust to delays. Within 2 hours a 15 minute delay in one direction was “erased.”

By: EvergreenRailfan

EvergreenRailfan — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 01:06:54 +0000

Makes a good idea to include High Speed Crossovers in future lines, won’t totally solve blockages, but some service is better than no service. When there are MAX Disruptions in Portland, they run a bus bridge, plus, it is done more easily because TriMet has two yards for MAX Trains on the Blue Line, one West of Portland, another East of Portland. Some of these disruptions are often due to expanding Light Rail in Portland, as each new line over the past decade has branched off the Blue Line.

By: AJ

AJ — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:49:48 +0000

When I did Accounting in North Portland, we had the following incidents in 8 months:
1) Breakdown in the tunnel, 10 minutes delay
2) No power to Steel Bridge, 5 minutes delay

That’s it.

By: Matt the Engineer

Matt the Engineer — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:44:33 +0000

I just realized I do know why I consider electric rail to be so reliable. When I lived in SF, BART would make headlines when it (rarely) broke down.

By: Matt the Engineer

Matt the Engineer — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:39:09 +0000

That’s an interesting point. Does anyone know how frequently MAX breaks down? I don’t know why, but I have the general impression that mechanical problems are rare for electric rail.

By: Martin H. Duke

Martin H. Duke — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:14:55 +0000

Tony,

We’ll have Sounder, Express Buses, and LINK. I think that’s pretty good redundancy for the main corridors.

It’d be nice to have multiple overlapping train lines a la NYC. If you have $40 billion or so sitting around for just such a project, let us know.

By: Tony

Tony — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 21:25:12 +0000

Bringing up the vulnerabilities of our single-mode transportation system has its merits, but as an argument for proposition 1, you’re sitting in a glass house. Do you think subways don’t have accidents and breakdowns? This is not so much an argument against trains, or freeways, but more about the dangers of having one long line (I-5 or Central Link) rather than multiple alternative routes. Of course, sub-area equity forces us to build one long, vulnerable line that stretches to Everett before it gets to Ballard. Ah, politics.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 20:29:53 +0000

I was stuck in a huge back-up on southbound AWV two fridays back – at about 6pm. Traffic was trickling from the Aurora bridge all the way down past Columbia. When we passed the scene, it was a similar situation: car based into guardrail, and pieces of concrete had fallen to the street below. I-5 is routinely blocked (it always seems to be the HOV lanes which get hit) by accidents.

It’s ridiculous for the Kemper people to say we need to widen freeways. What our interstate and state highway system needs is modernization. Which would cost tens of billions, alone. Not to mention the fact the state doesn’t even have enough money to repave and maintain existing roads.

By: AJ

AJ — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:00:39 +0000

I don’t think an umbrella can protect you from something like that.

SLOG has it right that this will probably appear in an attack ad since it does have quite a bit of weight to it. Guardrails keep cars from flying off the viaduct, so if protection measures come apart at the seams it’s a massive deal.

Oh, and the part about people walking down there is pretty notable as well.

I’d point out, however, that unlike Gregoire’s, Rossi’s timeline does not include measures to patch the viaduct and his timeline for removal and disuse pushes its closure back further than 2012.

By: Brian Bundridge

Brian Bundridge — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:51:57 +0000

Nothing as serious as the “Alert” made it sound. Car hit a guardrail and knocked it down.

http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_102008WAB_viaduct_guardrail_falls_SW.130265f9c.html

By: AJ

AJ — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:46:40 +0000

In March at the last tour (or was it Feb.?), I was told that “unless concrete is falling on busy streets,” they wouldn’t condemn the viaduct. My question was pretty pointed and pessimistic, but now it seems appropriate.

Is Western not busy enough or something? Was the concrete chunk tiny?