Downtown Light Rail, or just another stop along the way??

[Chief]

Let us say for conversational purposes only, that light rail through Downtown Vancouver at some point makes sense, although making it the prime mode right off the bat does not for several reasons. I want to focus on one of those reasons and see if I can coherently flesh out an evolving thought on all of this in light of youesterday's task force meeting.

In the Lincoln Neighborhood, I keep hearing that the biggest concern is the presence of a mammoth parking structure and all of the problems it will bring to a quiet neighborhood. As a snapshot idea here, what if it were possible to build just the line and a stop in the neighborhood, and instead of spending money to park cars, why not invest in the neighborhood infrastructure that improves the resident's ability to walk and bicycle to the max station; including ample secure bike parking along with some reasonable number of parking spots?

That's got to cost a whole lot sess than 1200+ parking spaces will, and it would actually help preserve the neighborhod, at least in my view.

Instead of transforming Lincoln into a state of the art traffic handling area for parking and moving cars to feed light rail as it stands right now, I am thinking more along the lines of a future Countywide system that had three stops along Downtown Vancouver, instead of those three stops being the end of the line.

Am I making sense here? I'm not endorsing anything, just trying to think outside of the box of my own brain a little...

Comments are welcome.

[tefen]

The parking garage isn't for the Lincoln neighborhood, it's for the commuters from the north. It's for people coming from Ridgefield, Battle Ground, La Center even just Hazel Dell to transfer to the MAX.

One opinion floating around the neighborhood is that these people should arrive by bus instead of parking cars at the transit center.

Another opinion is that the transit center should be further north, maybe at the BPA complex just across the freeway from Kiggin's Bowl or even at C-Tran's new facility in Hazel Dell.

Personally, I would be walking to the transit station if it was located at the proposed site, even though I live slightly outside the "5 minute walk" they identified on the charts last night. I suspect much of the neighborhood would be doing the same.

[Chief]

Again, this is the written edition of Sim-Transit here so bear with me...

What I'm getting at, is if the County is to focus on a high-speed, high capacity anything, it will have to be built in stages, and these parking facilities need a lot of work. Leaving them out is one way to focus the money on building a more acceptable system, that is longer and could potentially expand easily, if needed.

For example; in my mind it makes more sense to put in a light rail station in Downtown and run the line up SR-14 to an I-205 transit station, that is also fed from the other direction by a line that starts in Camas/Washougal, and stops at 192nd and the Fisher's Landing Transit Centers. If you need to build more parking, expanding what you already have is going to be easier than ramming it into a neighborhood. Same goes with SR-500. Draw traffic away from the neighborhoods down there instead of parking cars in them.

Provide an area like yours tefen with just a light rail station, and let people figure out how to get there quickly from home. Facilitate inexpensive improvements to the feeder system in that area to make sure there are proper bike lanes and sidewalks to easily feed the system from the neighborhood. It would require reconfiguring C-Tran for feeder lines as well.

Part of this money comes from the Cowlitz remember, and plans are contingent on the money that's available...

[Waterbuffalo]

If you look at the amount of cars on Clark County where is most of it going to come from?

If you look at all of new housing and busines starts are 2/3 of it are East of Andresen Road? Yes, there is some new Port business from Ridgefield and La Center, but if you look at the UGA its Battle Ground, Chelatchie Prairie and some other places.

Now to your idea of running Maxx along SR -14, hitting Evergeen, Fisher's landing and 192nd Avenue before heading back to Portland. Its a good idea and solution. But should there be more east side traffic being sent via maxx through the east side where MOST of the traffic is? Not i-5?


How about all the traffic that's off Ward Road and that new NE piece of land near Camas that seems to be building more and more out every day?

[archangelrichard]

Think Density.

Transit allows for fewer roads by supporting higher residential density - in other words look for apartment complexes. Running light rail straight north (ignoring those nasty transit preventing "hill" things) as far as 99th and having parking there might make sense; heading east along 63rd or so to Vancouver Mall / Andresen apartment area makes a lot of sense, Heading east along mill plain out into Cascade Park Apartment area makes a lot of sense; Camas, Washougal makes NO sense as they are too small

Trying to use I-205 you would likely have to build elevated (above the freeway as the bike lane area is too narrow) or look into below the freeway construction - and the next question is how much additional weight can that freeway hold. I suspect this would be too much weight unless you trade a freeway lane for a light rail lane (build in an existing freeway lane)

I find it amazing that no one as spotted the following:

The history of transit in this country is that transit was created to support housing development by the developers then donated to the city / county when the houses were sold. A majority of all bus / trolley systems were built this way - by real estate developers.

Everywhere light rail has been built has seen an increase in property values along the route of 20 - 25% - which is why they keep being built in downtowns to support the big downtown real estate owners (think Boise Cascade, The Columbian, etc.). They stand to make millions.

[Chief]

The density I think about is the number of available home owners (or lack thereof) who will ultimately be asked to pay for this. There aren't enough of us in the City to take this on by ourselves, and there isn't anything in the transit options being proposed that would be worthwhile for the rest of the County.

Now, if we let the Cowlitz build their Casino, and tap them for a substantial annual stipend for Transit, we might have something to discuss; but only if someone can propose a system that goes faster than 35 MPH, and delivers service of value to Clark County residents...

[archangelrichard]

"ultimately be asked to pay for"..., what exactly. You were given a proposal by the downtown business interests that supported them a few years back and voted it down as it was not designed to fit the needs of - the voters. That is NOT the current proposal.

That says nothing about this proposal or about it's financing; this is more a religious fear of possibly paying something for something with nothing defined.The better question would be to get that definition as what is the cost and what is the benefit. I have seen many people oppose light rail on the grounds that they would not use it but what does that matter if the car in front of you on the freeway would? Light rail is an alternative freeway that reduces pollution - instead of building I-5 in downtown vancouver out to ten lanes total we build light rail instead, which is cheaper per passenger if there is the use / density I talked about.

In other words its not about whether you can afford light rail but whether you can afford the alternative (ALL the costs, including more land, increased pollution, higher health care, degraded quality of life, ... ALL the costs). You are going to have to pay for SOMETHING, what is the most cost effective for ALL the costs?

[Chief]

Right now I am paying for C-Tran, AND Trimet, along with a healthy chunk to the State of Oregon. That is in addition to the Sales tax on goods here in Washington, along with property taxes on my house that are already through the roof.

But silly me!! How could an ignorant Clark County or Vantucky resident know anythig about his own finances!! Why, I'm sure all of you North Portland Alternative 14 Resurrection Society folks know how to spend my taxes much better than I do...

Right, Dick??

[Waterbuffalo]

Richard: The question I pose you is, Does Light Rail serve the whole community of Clark County? And I don't mean only a few stops along I-5 and 205.

Can light rail "efficiently and effectively" serve the whole area of Clark County?

There have been several people here that have come close to convince me in some ways but your comments have not. Please show me how?

[archangelrichard]

first ...

Chief: Huh? While sarcastic, I can make no sense of your post, other than no matter what we do it will cost money. Duh!

Waterbuffalo: Nothing can serve the whole community of Clark County. Some people can walk to work, and to shopping. Should they pay for freeways, bridges, etc that they don't use? (in other words this is a straw man argument you pose)

Further can anything "efficiently and effectively" serve the whole area of Clark County?" Again no, Again this is a fools argument

To serve Clark County first you have to define what that means. You use "a few stops along I-5 and 205" as not being that definition; I don't know that I would agree that ANY stops along I-5 and I-205 are doing a service, although you get into the whole I-5 corridor business, that serving that corridor takes traffic OFF OF I-5 and that is a service.

Mass transit means you need masses of people (density) as in large apartment complexes, condominiums, highrises; or "trips" i.e. common destinations (as in hospitals, shopping centers, places of work, airports, etc.) Low density usually will not support any kind of transit (remember you have to pay for a driver as well as vehicle)

Vancouver is built densely (Go to Phoenix if you want to see low desnity - the cheapest house is on 1/3 of an acre; many have a full acre; until ten years ago a two story house was basically unheard of except for the very rich.) Having light rail that goes through some of that high density makes sense (i.e. a route through the apartment areas just north and to the east and west of vancouver mall) and to some of those high-trip destinations (salmon creek hospital, south west washington hospital, vancouver shopping mall, cascade park shopping areas, Tech Center, DOWNTOWN.

As well, having a fixed route tends to create density so going up hazel dell rd, for instance, would over time cause businesses, higher density housing, and jobs to build in between downtown and a final stop; say around 99th or even 134th. Having fixed stops creates even higher densities. In other words it might not pay for itself today but ...

The real routes to look at, though, are places in Vancouver to downtown portland (NOTE to downtown businesses: Transit tends to make Vancouver less of a separate city with its own downtown and more of a suburb; think Milwaukie, oregon) It's not just new people going to those destinations; it's cars not going there, not using that lane, not requiring a new, expensive freeway. In other words, ASSUMING that people only need to use the I-5 corridor to get from downtown Vancouver to the expo center, you remove a bunch of cars from that corridor by building transit instead

the big point - transit is cheaper to build

The problem - how many people are going point to point, e.g. from downtown Vancouver to the expo center? Bulding transit on the bridge makes sense if you use it like the center of a web, with routes spreading out on both sides; this takes A LOT OF TRAFFIC off the bridge; or if you have a very high volume route - and there is the rub: where does this high volume run start? Large scale apartment or condominiums (density).

Again, understand, transit is incredibly cheaper to build than freeway lanes for the same passenger loads - every train car may replace 80 - 100 cars but uses the same real estate as any 1 car (1 lane), the construction is cheaper (it need not be paved; the "transit" version of a bridge could be girders without any roadway), you don't carry your power source, its electric overhead wires so you save on fuel; etc.

None of which matters if you don't have passengers. The real question is whether or not there are passengers, whether or not there are destinations at both ends for passengers. This, I can't answer, it takes a lot of research. Has anybody done the research or is this light rail as much a religious issue as replacing the Interstate Bridge before all other transit needs seems to be?

Where's the science?

[karma]

Never mind my other question after reading this, it appears you are an agenda pusher???

[Waterbuffalo]

Richard: I think you hit the nail right on the head in your statement.

Its the "definition" of "what" we want to build for this community and how its going to be paid for. Either your ideas or any one else's..