BLOG: Freight Master Plan: It's About Time!
Sam Adams
Portland is the nation’s 4th largest domestic and international freight hub comprised of 12,500 areas of industrial land, which includes: marine; rail; air modes; highways; and pipelines. One out of 9 jobs in the Portland area are in the transportation and logistics sectors.
Until now, we have been a freight hub without a road map for future success. City Council's consideration of the draft Freight Master Plan begins to change that.
Started by former City Commissioner Jim Francesconi, the draft Freight Master Plan is the work of the Portland Freight Committee - representing all the freight modes and Chaired by Ann Gardner.
The Plan seeks to:
• support projected increases in freight movement on Portland’s transportation network;
• protect neighborhoods from unnecessary freight impacts;
• balance freight mobility needs with other transportation mode needs; and,
• build Portland’s global trade competitiveness.
Over the next 5 years, the Portland Office of Transportation will oversee the construction of over $50 million in freight transportation improvements – not enough given the need - but it's a start.
“The experience of working on putting together this draft Plan has been incredibly rewarding,” Bob Russell, President of the Oregon Trucking Association said today, “Today we have beginnings of the fright master plan and that is very important.”
“I learned a lot about this city that I thought I already knew,” said, Lee Johnson, owner of Jet Delivery, a small load delivery company.
“The City has done a great job with this process of reaching out to us; we feel this is a strong plan,” said Scott Bricker, Policy Director for Bicycle Transportation Alliance, “I want to dispel the myth that truckers and bikers cannot get along.”
“We put a lot of weight behind this plan; thanks for being responsive to our concerns; we recommend its adoption,” Kip Larsen, board member Brooklyn Action Corps.
“The cost of moving goods is becoming increasingly important and this draft plan starts the process of thinking how to do this as efficiently and effectively as possible,” said Bob Short, manager for Glacier Northwest, a sand and gravel company.
“Result of diligent research, the Plan is the starting point to build actions to reach our common goals,” Jan Frost, manager Harris Transportation, a fuel transportation firm.
“Why address freight? Portland is a gateway, our economy has grown up around this gateway - from our vantage point, an integrated and efficient transportation system doesn’t happen by itself - this plan helps us knit it together,” Susie Lahsene explains, transportation and land use manager for Port of Portland.
And it’s about time.
Posted by Sam Adams on May 3, 2006
(24) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (1)
Filed Under Blog, Front Page, Transportation
Comments by site visitors
Not a stupid comment at all. Is OHSU going to start receiving their deliveries via the TRAM. Another waste of money.
Posted by: Dennis | May 4, 2006 12:27:46 PM
You can't drive a 747 on the freeway either... and submarines can't cross railroad tracks... what's the point of any of the above comments?
Different modes of transport serve different purposes. While roads are by far our most general-purpose mode, the fact that particular mode serves a narrower set of purposes does not invalidate having that mode available.
There are legitimate criticisms of various modes, for sure, but "can't move freight on MAX" isn't one of them.
- Bob R.
Posted by: Bob R. | May 4, 2006 2:43:42 PM
Oh, so we can't move freight on transit.
So why are most of the transportation dollars spent on those projects?
You want examples?
500 Million for Interstate MAX but not enough money to widen I-5 to 8 lanes.
1.?? Billon for Westside MAX but 60 Million every 2 years to widen 26 to 6 lanes.
300+ for "commuter rail" to be built within 5 years but 80 years to widen 217.
I wonder how much the new Clacakamas county rail will cost? I wonder what road projects will be put off to fund them?
Posted by: Anthony | May 4, 2006 3:46:47 PM
"Oh, so we can't move freight on transit."
You mean you didn't know?
"So why are most of the transportation dollars spent on those projects?"
If by most you mean "most", you are wrong.
"You want examples?"
Sure. Fire away.
"500 Million for Interstate MAX but not enough money to widen I-5 to 8 lanes."
You're exaggerating by over $150 million for Interstate Max. Nice way to start.
Take a good look at all of the overpasses on I-5 between the Marquam Bridge and the Columbia. Take a good look at the approaches to the Fremont bridge. Most would have to be relocated and reconstructed to widen I-5. Widening I-5, even if there is the political will to do so, would cost billions.
Note that where there is some room to widen I-5, it _is_ being proposed by planners already... look at most of the options remaining before the Columbia River Crossing task force.
"1.?? Billon for Westside MAX but 60 Million every 2 years to widen 26 to 6 lanes."
$963 million in 1998 dollars.
"300+ for "commuter rail" to be built within 5 years but 80 years to widen 217."
$117.3 million. You're only off by a factor of 2.5.
Where does your "80 years" figure come from?
"I wonder how much the new Clacakamas county rail will cost?"
Well, you could do what I did for these other projects and just Google a bit to get their budgets. It's not like the budgets are a big secret, being publised on agency web pages and all that... By the way, it's spelled "Clackamas."
"I wonder what road projects will be put off to fund them?"
That's a good question. The first good question you've posed. We do know that certain federal matching funds (which are used in all of the transit projects you have mentioned, at least 50% of the cost) are ONLY available for transit. If the project's aren't built, the money goes to some other region's transit projects. Now, you may disagree with the way the feds allocate transportation dollars, and if so you should contact your congressperson and senator.
- Bob R.
Posted by: Bob R. | May 4, 2006 5:44:03 PM
I find it very interesting that a politically motivated bicycle plan that potentially reduces family wage auto industry jobs in favor of subsidizing bicycle fanatics took precedence over the Freight Master Plan designed to preserve and create jobs. I also wonder how curb extensions fit into the Freight Master Plan in that curb extensions restrict truck movements, create unnecessary congestion, require motorists (including trucks) to use more fuel and only have a negative effect on air quality adding to global warming.
Lenny who often speaks for the businesses on Swan Island, including freight haulers, likes curb extensions. He has also has made suggestions that include removing center lines and narrowing streets, and slowing traffic down to 20 mph in business districts.
Maybe with the Freight Master Plan, all of his ideas can be adopted as an experiment on Swan Island, the business district he represents. All streets on the island could be reduced to two lane thoroughfares with one narrow ten foot wide lane in each direction and the center line removed. Curb extensions would then be installed at all Swan Island intersections. The posted speed would be 20 mph to slow down the big rigs down and make the island more pedestrian friendly.. North Going Street between the island and Interstate Avenue could receive the same treatment allowing for main street type development to occur on each side.
Personally, I do not recommend this type of street reconstruction experiment. However, the experiment is currently taking place all over Portland and using scarce transportation dollars to create what I call artificial congestion. Sandy Boulevard is the next victim street in line to receive the treatment. Confining such street modifications (often called improvements by supporters) to the isolated area of Swan Island, where the spokesperson supports such traffic calming extremes, is a far more wise use of the public’s money than to conduct the experiment city wide.
As for the Freight Master Plan itself, I think it is long overdue. However, such a plan should be financially supported by the users and beneficiaries of the plan, the freight industry. Furthermore, freight priorities should be on an equal basis with motorist priorities. In other words, follow where the money comes from to set priorities. Freight paid taxes to freight projects, motorist paid dollars to motorist projects (which in many cases will help freight movements too), and for bicyclists, when they are willing to tax themselves and pay their own way, they too can have an equal footing.
Posted by: Terry Parker | May 4, 2006 7:49:51 PM
Terry, you are completely mischaracterizing Lenny's past statements regarding speed limits and "business districts".
Lenny's comments regarding 20mph speed limits and center-line striping have been regarding pedestrian-intensive environments such as NW 23rd Ave., not industrial areas like Swan Island.
I'm sure you are capable of telling the difference between streets like NW 23rd Ave. and Swan Island, Columbia Blvd, etc.
- Bob R.
Posted by: Bob R. | May 5, 2006 8:04:15 AM
I admit I was being somewhat cynical related to Lenny’s past comments. I do not specifically recall that he has ever mentioned NW 23rd in any of his posts and agree there is a difference between areas like NW 23rd and Swan Island. However, the point of my previous post was to demonstrate how ridiculous some of his suggestions are when applied as policy, even in places like NW 23rd. Chances are on NW 23rd when there is a high volume of pedestrian activity; it is highly unlikely that traffic speeds exceed much over 20 mph. During non-heavy pedestrian activity times, the traffic speeds are probably a little faster. A posted speed of 20 mph is too slow with 25mph being about right. Removing a center line on a busy street like NW 23rd or any place else that has a remotely similar traffic count (Lenny was referring to N Mississippi) is totally unsafe and just plain stupid. Just as unsafe is narrowing the street such that two large trucks in their own marked lanes can not pass with reasonable clearances, and the reason why I chose Lenny’s beloved Swan Island to suggest his type of experimental design ideas be tested. Narrowing the street also has negative safety consequences for people getting in and out of cars parked at the curb and for bicyclists. Curb extensions also are a safety hazard. They harm the environment by creating unnecessary congestion when busses stop for passengers in travel lanes, they require motorists (including trucks) to use more fuel and they have a negative effect on air quality adding to global warming. Curb extensions make truck turning movements more difficult, have contributed to crashes and eliminate the safety margin between pedestrians on the sidewalk and moving traffic. Curb extensions like the one in front of the Safeway store on SE Hawthorne can also be a safety hazard for bicyclists. Curb extensions are basically an expensive product of the social engineering “pedestrian friendly” buzz that includes unnecessarily wide sidewalks be constructed in some areas. Curb extensions have more negative impacts than positive ones.
Part of the problem that has allowed Lenny type suggestions to be adopted is that much of the citizen advisory process that occurs in Portland has become flawed. Just about every transportation related citizen advisory committee has business representatives, neighborhood representatives, a pedestrian coalition rep, a transit advocate rep, and a bicycle advocate rep, but no representation for the majority people who drive. Just to assume that one of the business or neighborhood people represents motorists is totally false. Therefore the outcome of a committee’s work often crates an unfriendly traffic environment for motorists, the same motorists who are taxed to pay for most transportation projects. Furthermore, to be selected to serve on a citizen committee, a candidate often times must pass a non-objective opinion test to see if there is an agreement with what is being proposed. That makes the committee anything but a cross section of what it should be. Was there any motorist specific or commuting driver representation on the committee that put together the Freight Master Plan? I doubt it, but there was a bicycle advocate representative. The fact is Lenny or a Lenny sound-a-like was probably there making sure they got what they wanted at the expense of somebody else.
As I stated in my earlier post, I think the Freight Master Plan long overdue, but it should be no greater or less of a priority than the needs of other financially supporting users of the roads, specifically motorists. Unless Lenny would like to test his ideas on the isolated areas of Swan Island, posting 20 mph speeds, narrowing streets, removing center lines and the proliferation of curb extensions should not even be considered as a responsible, or in many cases a safe solution to manage traffic on busy streets.
Posted by: Terry Parker | May 5, 2006 3:32:29 PM
Bob:
I'm not sure who you were quoting, but would they offer a money back guarantee on Interstate Max completion for the quoted budget?
Can we get that in writing?
Posted by: Alice | May 5, 2006 7:47:27 PM
Whatever estimate they provide for Light Rail construction is likely an understatement.
Posted by: Alice | May 6, 2006 8:45:27 AM
Terry,
You have an unhealthy obession with curb extensions - not matter what the topic is on this site - you try and bring them up. I suggest you seek treatment.
Elaine
Posted by: Elaine | May 6, 2006 9:50:18 AM
I think Parker's comments about using logic in applying policy is needed by our planners.
Curb extensions, etc. have there places in some circumstances, but many times they not beneficial if you look at the whole picture of mobility.
Take for example the intersection of Barbur Blvd. and Terwilliger. When coming into town on Terwilliger on the bridge over I-5, our transportation planners have made it impossible to make a right hand turn onto Barbur to continue into downtown Portland. They have stripped the lanes where there is not right turn. So now traffic backs up a quarter mile to SW Taylors Ferry on Terwilliger. Those wanting to make the right turn must wait for all the other traffic wanting to turn south onto Barbur or to go straght through the intersection to OHSU. This stripping was done for ped. safety.
This occurs at many intersections around town where traffic is impeded, causing pollution, etc.
Posted by: Lee | May 6, 2006 11:27:59 AM
Alice wrote: "Whatever estimate they provide for Light Rail construction is likely an understatement."
The Interstate MAX project to which you were referring was widely touted as coming in early (May '04 instead of September '04 as I recall) and under-budget.
If you have documentation as to otherwise, I'd love to see it.
I've been to several public meetings (as a private citizen) regarding the new Green Line / Mall proposal. Whether or not you approve of this project, I have seen just how much time and attention is given to individual line items in the budget, right down to deciding what kind of brick to use, what kind of masts to hold up the traffic lights and wires, intersection paving treatments, etc.
I know that back when Westside MAX (to Hillsboro) opened, there was much talk about how they had spent all of their contingency (not technically going over-budget for the whole project, but going right up to the very edge), and the Downtown-to-Beaverton segment opened months late due to tunnel delays.
The point is that when TriMet has budget and timeline problems, people hear about it. I don't think they're trying to hide anything.
Of course, whether or not you think MAX is worth the cost, or is funded from appropriate sources, is open to debate. But if you believe TriMet is outright lying not just about estimates, but what they actually spent, I'd like to see evidence.
- Bob R.
Posted by: Bob R. | May 7, 2006 5:24:10 PM
They can't move freight on the MAX? Streetcar? Bike lanes?
Posted by: Anthony | May 3, 2006 6:24:57 PM
This *might* seem like a dumb idea to some, but in Salt Lake City the lightrail system shares its tracks with freight. If you miss the last train of the night and you're hanging out at the station trying to figure out what to do, you might be lucky enough to see a Utah Railway freight train rumble through the station! They deliver on spur tracks along UTA's mainline 5 days a week during the early morning hours after lightrail service is over.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | May 7, 2006 11:14:33 PM
They can't move freight on the MAX? Streetcar? Bike lanes?
Posted by: Anthony | May 3, 2006 6:24:57 PM
This *might* seem like a dumb idea to some, but in Salt Lake City the lightrail system shares its tracks with freight. If you miss the last train of the night and you're hanging out at the station trying to figure out what to do, you might be lucky enough to see a Utah Railway freight train rumble through the station! They deliver on spur tracks along UTA's mainline 5 days a week during the early morning hours after lightrail service is over.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | May 7, 2006 11:15:55 PM
1) In addition to Salt Lake City, San Diego and Trenton-Camden both have light rail lines that share tracks with standard freight trains. Additionally, in the German city of Dresden they do deliver freight by light rail; Google the term "CarGoTram" and be enlightened.
2) It is clear that Alice chooses to ignore facts which are inconvenient to her, and speaks from presumption. In truth, Interstate MAX (that's the Yellow Line, Alice, since you're clearly confused) was ahead of schedule and under-budget. Budget estimates are just that: estimates. Prices for materials and time needed for work cannot be accurately or precisely anticipated in any major design and/or construction project. That goes for highways, buildings, vehicle engineering, aerospace; you name it. Instead of inappropriately scorning Interstate MAX (which, again, was not over budget, contrary to your claims), why don't you display as much outrage with over-budget highway projects, of which there are certainly no shortage? Or would that be too inconvenient for your unjustifiable anti-rail bias?
Posted by: James Aslaksen | May 8, 2006 9:24:04 AM
Not to derail the discussion any further, but can someone show me where preciseloy it would be convenient to move frieght on MAX lines?
Posted by: Benkay | May 8, 2006 11:15:48 AM
I don't believe there is any location where freight movement would be worthwhile over MAX lines. I merely pointed out that it is possible. Of course, it would have to occur after regular service has stopped for the night were it to occur at all.
But, Benkay, your post is a reminder that it's stupid to fault MAX for not being a freight movement system. It does what it was built to do, and unless the anti-rail gang can provide any numbers to the contrary, it's just as easy for me to say that MAX takes cars off the road, thereby improving freight mobility indirectly, as it is for the anti-rails to claim that it's a failure for not moving freight (or providing new or expanded/widened ROWs for such movement) directly. The similarity between the two arguments is that neither means much without data to support. The main difference between the arguments is that theirs is a straw-man.
Posted by: James Aslaksen | May 8, 2006 11:30:05 AM
OK back to freight movement.
Actually, in Lower Albina citizens and businesses working together came up with curb extension designs that work for trucks by restricting parking right at street corners. Trucks making tight turns can climb a curb extension if necessary, but cannot run over parked cars.
As to Swan Island...its no business district, but is a thriving industrial area with lots of transportation options...transit, vanpools, bike commuters...and lots of trucks, more than almost anywhere else in town. But you won't find Going Street in the Freight Master Plan as a congested arterial, though it has some of the highest traffic counts in the city. Something to learn down here.
But still you can see the effects of poor design...on the Lagoon/Channel couplet we have three lane wide straight-aways where police have clocked people driving 100 MPH; they have also hosted nighttime drag races. Build it wide, and we will speed; build it narrow, and we will slow down. Every community, including Swan Island, could use some slowing down.
But on a fundamental note, I question the basic premise of the port and those wringing there hands about freight movement.
I guess its because I walk along the river every morning and see Terminal 2
sitting empty, because I work with adidasAmerica, a North American HQ, that doesn't ship one shoe, because if I had to choose between Freightliner's
North American HQ and the Truck Plant, it would be easily the former, and
because I can count...Portland is not and will never be a major port, i.e.
container port, with no disrespect toward wheat and autos.
Because of all this and more, I don't buy "Portland's future is Freight" story. I think this "freight is our destiny" fantasy is fostered by the Port to cover its own failures (no Lower Columbia River Port Authority with a giant container port at Tongue Point), by those whose vision of the future is full of good forklift jobs, and most dangerously by those who see "freight" as a lever to get more roads built.
Education and innovation is the real ticket to our region's economic well being...Intel did not lose market
share due shipping costs out of Portland.
Posted by: Lenny Anderson | May 10, 2006 2:45:59 PM
Lenny stated: “in Lower Albina citizens and businesses working together came up with curb extension designs that work for trucks by restricting parking right at street corners. Trucks making tight turns can climb a curb extension if necessary, but cannot run over parked cars.” (May 10, 2006)
The restriction of parking at street corners makes sense. However what works for trucks does not necessarily work for other vehicles or even pedestrians. Such comments raise two questions:
How many pedestrians can a truck safely run over in the process of climbing over a curb extension?
And how can other traffic climb over busses stopped for passengers at curb extensions and blocking a travel lane so such obstructions no longer will create more congestion, require motorists to use more fuel and have a negative affect on air quality and global warming?
Posted by: Terry Parker | May 11, 2006 6:05:16 PM
How to move freight through busy districts with pedestrians, bikes, buses, etc.? Slowly and with lots of patience.
Posted by: Lenny Anderson | May 16, 2006 10:16:09 AM
Post your comment
Please note: your email address, although required to post, will not be visible. We remove inappropriate or offensive content, and content deemed improper by State and City election and ethics law. The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of the office or the City of Portland.
They can't move freight on the MAX? Streetcar? Bike lanes?
What is this world comming to?
Posted by: Anthony | May 3, 2006 6:24:57 PM