DOCSLIB.ORG

Transport Regional Its Architecture and Operational Concept Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Transport Regional Its Architecture and Operational Concept Report Regional ITS Architecture & Operational Concept Plan for the Portland Metro Region prepared for Oregon Department TransPort of Transportation INTERSTATE 5 Clark County Vancouver INTERSTATE 205 Banks North Plains Camas Multnomah County Washougal Maywood Park INTERSTATE 26 84 Fairview INTERSTATE 405 Wood Troutdale Forest Hillsboro Village Grove Cornelius Portland Gresham Beaverton 217 INTERSTATE Washington County 5 Milwaukie Happy Valley Gaston Tigard Lake Oswego Johnson King City City Durham Sandy Gladstone Rivergrove Tualatin West INTERSTATE Linn 205 Sherwood Clackamas County Oregon City Yamhill County Wilsonville Newberg Carlton Estacada Dundee INTERSTATE 5 Canby Barlow Lafayette Dayton prepared by December 2016 TRANSPORT REGIONAL ITS ARCHITECTURE AND OPERATIONAL CONCEPT REPORT ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Metro Project Manager Chris Myers Metro TransPort Committee Jabra Khasho City of Beaverton Aszita Mansor City of Beaverton Tina Nguyen City of Beaverton Jim Gelhar City of Gresham Dan Hazel City of Hillsboro Tegan Enloe City of Hillsboro Amanda Owings City of Lake Oswego Willie Rotich City of Portland Peter Koonce City of Portland Mike Ward City of Wilsonville Bikram Raghubansh Clackamas County Nathaniel Price Federal Highway Administration Caleb Winter Metro Andrew Dick Oregon Department of Transportation Kate Freitag Oregon Department of Transportation Galen McGill Oregon Department of Transportation Dennis Mitchell Oregon Department of Transportation Kristin Tufte Portland State University Mike Coleman Port of Portland Phil Healy Port of Portland Steve Callas TriMet A.J. O’Connor TriMet Ken Turner TriMet Stacy Shetler Washington County Other Stakeholders/Contributors Ron White TriMet Bob Hart Regional Transportation Committee (RTC) Consultant Team DKS Associates IBI Group Jennifer Bachman Jim Peters Mike Haas Keith Ponto Renee Hurtado Danella Whitt Bruno Peters June Park Adrian Pearmine Alexis Biddle December 2016 Page i of v TRANSPORT REGIONAL ITS ARCHITECTURE AND OPERATIONAL CONCEPT REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Contents 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................1 1.1 What Was Updated? ................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Who is TransPort? .................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 What is ITS? .............................................................................................................................. 2 1.4 Why Develop an ITS Architecture? .......................................................................................... 2 1.5 Report Elements ....................................................................................................................... 2 2 National ITS Architecture Overview ..........................................................................................4 2.1 Logical Architecture ................................................................................................................. 5 2.2 Physical Architecture................................................................................................................ 5 2.2.1 Subsystems ................................................................................................................................. 7 2.2.2 Equipment Packages .................................................................................................................. 7 2.2.3 Terminators ................................................................................................................................ 7 2.2.4 Architecture Flows ..................................................................................................................... 8 2.2.5 Architecture Interconnects ........................................................................................................ 8 3 TransPort Regional ITS Architecture ..........................................................................................9 3.1 Regional ITS Plans .................................................................................................................. 10 3.2 Architecture Update Process ................................................................................................. 12 3.2.1 Status Field in Turbo Architecture ............................................................................................ 14 3.3 Geographic Boundary ............................................................................................................ 14 3.4 Timeframe .............................................................................................................................. 16 3.5 Scope ...................................................................................................................................... 16 3.6 Stakeholders ........................................................................................................................... 16 3.6.1 Agreements .............................................................................................................................. 16 3.7 System Inventory ................................................................................................................... 17 3.8 User Services .......................................................................................................................... 18 3.9 Service Packages .................................................................................................................... 19 3.10 High-Level Physical Architecture Interconnects ................................................................. 23 3.11 Functional Requirements .................................................................................................... 24 4 Maintenance Plan .................................................................................................................. 26 4.1 Who Maintains the Regional ITS Architecture? ..................................................................... 26 4.2 What is Maintained in the Regional ITS Architecture? .......................................................... 26 4.3 When is the Regional ITS Architecture Updated? .................................................................. 27 4.3.1 Option 1: Periodic Update (Every Five to Ten Years) ............................................................... 27 4.3.2 Option 2: Project-Based Update ............................................................................................... 27 December 2016 Page ii of v TRANSPORT REGIONAL ITS ARCHITECTURE AND OPERATIONAL CONCEPT REPORT 4.4 How is the Regional ITS Architecture Maintained? ............................................................... 27 5 Operational Concept PlanS ..................................................................................................... 29 5.1.1 Operational Concept Development Approach ......................................................................... 30 5.1.2 Operational Concept Service Areas .......................................................................................... 30 5.1.3 Organization of the Operational Concept by Service Area ....................................................... 31 5.2 Regional Traffic Control ......................................................................................................... 33 5.2.1 Potential Connected Vehicle Applications ............................................................................... 36 5.2.2 Operational Concept Graphic ................................................................................................... 36 5.2.4 Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities .................................................................................... 39 5.3 Traveler Information .............................................................................................................. 42 5.3.1 Potential Connected Vehicle Applications ............................................................................... 43 5.3.2 Operational Concept Graphic ................................................................................................... 43 5.3.4 Stakeholders Roles and Responsibilities .................................................................................. 45 5.4 Incident Management ............................................................................................................ 48 5.4.1 Potential Connected Vehicle Applications ............................................................................... 50 5.4.2 Operational Concept Graphic ................................................................................................... 50 5.4.4 Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities .................................................................................... 52 5.5 Maintenance and Construction Management ....................................................................... 55 5.5.1 Potential Connected Vehicle Applications ............................................................................... 56 5.5.2 Operational Concept Graphic ................................................................................................... 57 5.5.3 Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities .................................................................................... 57 5.6 Public Transportation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Union Station Conceptual Engineering Study
    Portland Union Station Multimodal Conceptual Engineering Study Submitted to Portland Bureau of Transportation by IBI Group with LTK Engineering June 2009 This study is partially funded by the US Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. IBI GROUP PORtlAND UNION STATION MultIMODAL CONceptuAL ENGINeeRING StuDY IBI Group is a multi-disciplinary consulting organization offering services in four areas of practice: Urban Land, Facilities, Transportation and Systems. We provide services from offices located strategically across the United States, Canada, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. JUNE 2009 www.ibigroup.com ii Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................... ES-1 Chapter 1: Introduction .....................................................................................1 Introduction 1 Study Purpose 2 Previous Planning Efforts 2 Study Participants 2 Study Methodology 4 Chapter 2: Existing Conditions .........................................................................6 History and Character 6 Uses and Layout 7 Physical Conditions 9 Neighborhood 10 Transportation Conditions 14 Street Classification 24 Chapter 3: Future Transportation Conditions .................................................25 Introduction 25 Intercity Rail Requirements 26 Freight Railroad Requirements 28 Future Track Utilization at Portland Union Station 29 Terminal Capacity Requirements 31 Penetration of Local Transit into Union Station 37 Transit on Union Station Tracks
    [Show full text]
  • Trimet SE Service Enhancement Plan
    Presentation to the Clackamas County Board of County Commissioners September 22, 2015 Schedule Westside: Completed in 2014 Southwest: Completed in 2015 Eastside: Completion in 2016 Southeast: Completion in 2016 North/Central: Completion in 2016 Annual Service Plan Optimize & Maintain Restore Increase Capacity & Restore Frequent Increase spans & Reliability Service Levels frequencies Schedule & detail Add new lines tweaks Optimize routes & schedules Reconfigure lines Hillsboro Beaverton Gresham Portland Forest Grove/ Cornelius Tigard Happy Milwaukie King Valley City Lake Oswego Tualatin Legend Sherwood West Job center Linn Oregon City Downtown trips Hillsboro Beaverton Gresham Portland Forest Grove/ Cornelius Tigard Happy Milwaukie King Valley City Lake Oswego Tualatin Legend Sherwood West Job center Linn Oregon City Downtown trips Hillsboro Beaverton Gresham Portland Forest Grove/ Cornelius Tigard Happy Milwaukie King Valley City Lake Oswego Legend Tualatin Sherwood West Job center Linn Oregon City Downtown trips Outreach efforts: More service to Sunnyside Rd. Clackamas Industrial Area OC to Tualatin service Service to S. Oregon City trimet.org/southeast SOUTHEAST Help make transit better in your community Making Transit Better in Southeast Draft Vision We’ve been talking with riders What we heard from the community and community members We learned from Southeast riders and residents about the about improving bus service in challenges they face today and how the region will grow in the future. Based on this, we’re proposing more and better Southeast Portland, Estacada, bus service to help people get to jobs, education, health Gladstone, Happy Valley, care, affordable housing and essential services. Proposed Milwaukie, Oregon City and bus service improvements include route changes and extensions, new bus lines, adjusted frequency and better Clackamas County.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix L: Design Guidelines: I-5 NCC Project
    Appendix L: Design Guidelines: I-5 NCC Project Appendix L: Design Guidelines: I-5 NCC Project I-5 North Coast Corridor Project Final EIR/EIS page L-1 Appendix L: Design Guidelines: I-5 NCC Project I-5 North Coast Corridor Project Final EIR/EIS page L-2 Design Guidelines Interstate 5 North Coast Corridor Project September 2013 Prepared by: Caltrans District 11 | T.Y. Lin International | Safdie Rabines Architects | Estrada Land Planning Interstate 5 North Coast Corridor Project – Design Guidelines Design Guidelines Interstate 5 North Coast Corridor Project Prepared by: Caltrans District 11 4050 Taylor Street San Diego, CA 92110 T.Y. Lin International 404 Camino del Rio South, Suite 700 San Diego, CA 92108 | 619.692.1920 Safdie Rabines Architects 925 Ft. Stockton Drive San Diego, CA 92123 | 619.297.6153 Estrada Land Planning 755 Broadway Circle, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92101 | 619.236.0143 Interstate 5 North Coast Corridor Project – Design Guidelines Interstate 5 North Coast Corridor Project – Design Guidelines Table of Contents Design Guidelines Interstate 5 North Coast Corridor Project Table of Contents I. Project Background D. Design Themes....................17 vi. Typical Freeway Undercrossing. 36 vii. Typical Bridge Details. 37 A. Introduction....................1 i. Corridor Theme Elements. 17 ii. Corridor Theme Priorities. 19 - Southern Bluff Theme....................38 B. Purpose.......................1 - Coastal Mesa Theme.....................39 iii. Corridor Theme Units. 20 C. Components & Products. 1 - Northern Urban Theme. 40 - Southern Bluff Theme....................21 D. The Proposed Project. 2 - Coastal Mesa Theme.....................22 B. Walls.............................41 E. Previous Relevant Documents. 3 - Northern Urban Theme. 23 i. Theme Unit Specific Wall Concepts.
    [Show full text]
  • Route Map 5 Ä H339 Æ
    ASTORIA Oregon Department of Transportation Warrenton H104 Svensen Approved routes for Mayger 30 Westport ¤£ Clatskanie Æ 101 Olney Ä Rainier ¤£ H105 Triples Combinations. Æ Gearhart C L A T S O PÄ 47 Prescott SEASIDE Goble H332 202 Mist 73300 Movement is authorized 395 Umapine Necanicum Cold ¤£2 Jewell ¤£ Springs Jct. C O L U M B I A Æ Ä MP 9.76 Umatilla Jct. Milton-Freewater Flora Ä Æ Æ Cannon Beach Route Map 5 Ä H339 Æ H103 Pittsburg Irrigon Ä only under authority of an Columbia City Æ Over-Dimension Permit Unit Ä Elsie 47 730 Holdman 53 ST. HELENS ¤£ Helix 11 Vernonia Boardman 0 207 26 7 30 82 Athena Æ ¤£ Ä Over-Dimension Permit. ¤£ Revised March 2020 HERMISTON 3 ¨¦§ H Heppner Jct. Æ Ä H334 Weston Scappoose Stanfield 3 Nehalem 3 Adams 204 Manzanita HOOD Permission not granted to 5 RIVER cross RR crossing at MP 102.40 30 37 Æ 84 30 Echo Ä Wheeler Buxton £ in Hood River 84 ¤£ Arlington H W A L L O W A ¤ 3 Cascade ¨¦§ Biggs § MP 13.22 ¨¦ 26 Locks Jct. Rufus 3 Æ Rockaway Celilo Blalock Ä H320 1 Æ T I L L A M O O K ¤£ Mosier Ä 82 Beach Banks North H281 PENDLETON Plains PORTLAND Æ Ä Minam Imnaha Odell Wallowa Æ Ä 74 Garibaldi Wasco 207 W A S H I N G T O N The Elgin . Bay City Troutdale Multnomah Æ CorneliusÄ Fairview Dalles t Forest HILLSBORO H O O D H282 206 i 6 Grove Falls G I L L I A M Wood 84 Oceanside Beaverton R I V E R U M A T I L L A Summerville m H131 Village Ione r 8 ¨¦§ Lostine Æ Parkdale 197 Ä Gresham Moro 0 e Tillamook M U L T N O M A H MP 83.00 ¤£ 30 Imbler 5 Netarts ENTERPRISE Æ Ä Pilot 3 Æ Ä £ Æ Ä ¤ p Æ Ä Rock H Gaston Tigard
    [Show full text]
  • Last Link of I-90 Ends 30-Year Saga by Peggy Reynolds, Seattle Times, 9 Sept 1993
    Last Link Of I-90 Ends 30-Year Saga By Peggy Reynolds, Seattle Times, 9 Sept 1993 Erica Clibborn's red convertible will be one of the first cars Sunday across the new Lacey V. Murrow Floating Bridge, last link in a project that started before Erica was born. The University of Washington junior, who will be going home to Mercer Island for Sunday dinner, was born in 1973, the year a federal court sent the Seattle-area stretch of Interstate 90 back to square one. By then, I-90 already reached most of the 3,063 miles from Boston to south Bellevue, and the final major segment had been in the works for 10 years. It would be another 20 years before that last 7 miles would be finished. That completion will be marked this weekend with an array of public events, and Clibborn and other drivers should be able to go across the eastbound span by 5 p.m. Sunday. That opening means that I-90 survived the anti-government sentiment of the late 1960s, the mass-transit worship of the '70s and the budget cutbacks of the '80s - even while other urban interstate projects were biting the dust in New York, Chicago, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Washington, San Francisco and Portland. Nevertheless, whether or not I-90 was really needed was subject to debate at all levels. It attracted a formidable enemies list, and was rescued regularly by a cast of hundreds. Without any one of its friends in local governments, on the state Transportation Commission, in the Legislature and in Congress, I-90 could have ended in south Bellevue instead of making it to its junction with Interstate 5 in Seattle.
    [Show full text]
  • I-90 Tolling Update
    I-90 Tolling Update John White Director of Tolled Corridors Development Paula Hammond Steve Reinmuth Secretary of Transportation Chief of Staff Seattle City Council January 28, 2012 I-90 is part of the Cross-Lake Washington Corridor • Represents two major east-west “Cross- Lake” travel corridors: I-90 and SR 520. • WSDOT is tolling SR 520 as part of a multi- faceted financing strategy to help generate enough revenue to fund replacement of the structurally-vulnerable bridge. • A new 520 bridge will give Cross-Lake WA travelers a safer, more reliable trip. 2 Funding for the SR 520 Program Construction Unfunded Program cost estimate (Oct. 2012): $4.13 billion What’s funded: $2.72 billion (includes sales tax deferral) • Pontoon construction in Grays Harbor. • The floating bridge and landings. • Eastside transit and HOV improvements. • The north half of the west approach bridge. Updated November 2012 Costs and Funding for Replacing SR 520 Bridge SR 520 program cost estimate $4.128 B Funding received to date $2.724 B State and local funding (Nickel and TPA) $0.55 B Federal funding $0.12 B SR 520 Account (tolling and future federal funds) $1.91 B Toll proceeds • TIFIA $300M • Triple pledge bonds $550M • First tier toll $159M • PAYGO $74M Federal proceeds • GARVEE $825M Deferred sales tax $0.14 B Unfunded need $1.404 B Program cost estimate based on 2012 CEVP - updated 10/25/12 4 Early Indicators of 520 Toll Success • Meeting or beating traffic forecasts. • Meeting revenue forecasts. • Most people are paying with Good To Go! accounts. – More than 384,000 active Good To Go! accounts.
    [Show full text]
  • I-15 Corridor System Master Plan Update 2017
    CALIFORNIA NEVADA ARIZONA UTAH I-15 CORRIDOR SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE 2017 MARCH 2017 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The I-15 Corridor System Master Plan (Master Plan) is a commerce, port authorities, departments of aviation, freight product of the hard work and commitment of each of the and passenger rail authorities, freight transportation services, I-15 Mobility Alliance (Alliance) partner organizations and providers of public transportation services, environmental their dedicated staff. and natural resource agencies, and others. Individuals within the four states and beyond are investing Their efforts are a testament of outstanding partnership and their time and resources to keep this economic artery a true spirit of collaboration, without which this Master Plan of the West flowing. The Alliance partners come from could not have succeeded. state and local transportation agencies, local and interstate I-15 MOBILITY ALLIANCE PARTNERS American Magline Group City of Orem Authority Amtrak City of Provo Millard County Arizona Commerce Authority City of Rancho Cucamonga Mohave County Arizona Department of Transportation City of South Salt Lake Mountainland Association of Arizona Game and Fish Department City of St. George Governments Bear River Association of Governments Clark County Department of Aviation National Park Service - Lake Mead National Recreation Area BNSF Railway Clark County Public Works Nellis Air Force Base Box Elder County Community Planners Advisory Nevada Army National Guard Brookings Mountain West Committee on Transportation County
    [Show full text]
  • Beverly Str!" Chair REVIEWED: LAURENCE KRESSEL, COUNTY COUNSEL for MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON MULTNOMAH COUNTY
    BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON In the Matter of Approval of ) Emergency Medical Services' ) RESOL UTION Request for Proposals for ) 94-249 Emergency Ambulance Service ) WHEREAS, Multnomah County Emergency Medical Services Division, under compliance with the Ambulance Service Plan, intends to contract for emergency ambulance service; and WHEREAS, the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners required that the Division's Request for Proposals for such service be approved by the Board; and WHEREAS, the final Request for Proposals is now submitted for Board approval; now therefore IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the Multnomah County Emergency Medical Services' Request for Proposals for Emergency Ambulance Service is approved. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON ~~ Beverly Str!" Chair REVIEWED: LAURENCE KRESSEL, COUNTY COUNSEL for MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OREGON MULTNOMAH COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ADMINISTRA TION REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL P990-37-0029 for the provision of EMERGENCY AMBULANCE SERVICE January 6, 1995 mULTnomRH COUnTY OREGOn BEVERLY STEIN EMPLOYEE SERVICES (503) 248-5015 (503) 248-5170 TOO PORTLAND BUILDING COUNTY CHAIR FINANCE (503) 248-3312 1120 s.w. FIFTH, 14TH FLOOR LABOR RELATIONS (503) 248-5135 P.O. BOX 14700 PLANNING & BUDGET (503) 248-3883 PORTLAND, OREGON 97214 RISK MANAGEMENT (503) 248-3797 PURCHASING, CONTRACTS (503) 248-5111 2505 S.E. 11TH, 1ST FLOOR & CENTRAL STORES PORTLAND, OREGON 97202 January 6, 1995 Dear Prospective Proposer: Enclosed is a detailed proposal package by which Multnomah County seeks to procure a contractor for an emergency ambulance system. It is the County's goal to provide an integrated pre-hospital advanced life support system in the most cost-efficient method available.
    [Show full text]
  • Idaho Transpo Rtation De Partm
    IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TRANSPORTATION IDAHO RP 226 Assessing Feasibility of Mitigating Barn Owl-Vehicle Collisions in Southern RESEARCH REPORT RESEARCH Idaho By Jim Belthoff, Erin Arnold, Tempe Regan Boise State University Tiffany Allen, Angela Kociolek Western Transportation Institute Prepared for Idaho Transportation Department Research Program, Contracting Services Division of Engineering Services http://itd.idaho.gov/highways/research/ November 2015 Standard Disclaimer This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Idaho Transportation Department and the United States Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The State of Idaho and the United States Government assume no liability of its contents or use thereof. The contents of this report reflect the view of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official policies of the Idaho Transportation Department or the United States Department of Transportation. The State of Idaho and the United States Government do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the object of this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA-ID-15-226 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Assessing feasibility of mitigating barn owl-vehicle collisions in southern Idaho December 2015 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Jim Belthoff, Erin Arnold, Tempe Regan, Tiffany Allen, and Angela Kociolek 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No.
    [Show full text]
  • Coordinated Transportation Plan for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities I Table of Contents June 2020
    Table of Contents June 2020 Table of Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 1-1 Development of the CTP .......................................................................................................... 1-3 Principles of the CTP ................................................................................................................ 1-5 Overview of relevant grant programs ..................................................................................... 1-7 TriMet Role as the Special Transportation Fund Agency ........................................................ 1-8 Other State Funding ................................................................................................................. 1-9 Coordination with Metro and Joint Policy Advisory Committee (JPACT) .............................. 1-11 2. Existing Transportation Services ...................................................................... 2-1 Regional Transit Service Providers .......................................................................................... 2-6 Community-Based Transit Providers ..................................................................................... 2-18 Statewide Transit Providers ................................................................................................... 2-26 3. Service Guidelines ........................................................................................... 3-1 History .....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Portland-Milwaukie Light Rail Project Profile, Oregon
    Portland-Milwaukie Light Rail Project Portland, Oregon (January 2015) The Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet) is constructing a double-track light rail transit (LRT) extension of the existing Yellow Line from the downtown Portland transit mall across the Willamette River, to southeast Portland, the city of Milwaukie, and urbanized areas of Clackamas County. The project includes construction of a new multimodal bridge across the Willamette River, one surface park-and­ ride lot facility with 320 spaces, one park-and-ride garage with 355 spaces, expansion of an existing maintenance facility, bike and pedestrian improvements and the acquisition of 18 light rail vehicles. Service will operate at 10-minute peak period frequencies during peak periods on weekdays. The project is expected to serve 22,800 average weekday trips in 2030. The project will increase transit access to and from employment and activity centers along the Portland and Milwaukie transportation corridor. It will link Downtown Portland with educational institutions, dense urban neighborhoods, and emerging growth areas in East Portland and Milwaukie. The Willamette River separates most of the corridor from Downtown Portland and the South Waterfront. The corridor’s only north-south highway (Highway 99E), which provides access to Downtown Portland via the existing Ross Island, Hawthorne, Morrison, and Burnside bridges, is limited to two through-lanes in each direction for much of the segment between Milwaukie and central Portland, most of which is congested. Existing buses have slow operating speeds due to congestion, narrow clearances and frequent bridge lift span openings. None of the existing river crossings provide easy access to key markets.
    [Show full text]
  • MAKING HISTORY 50 Years of Trimet and Transit in the Portland Region MAKING HISTORY
    MAKING HISTORY 50 Years of TriMet and Transit in the Portland Region MAKING HISTORY 50 YEARS OF TRIMET AND TRANSIT IN THE PORTLAND REGION CONTENTS Foreword: 50 Years of Transit Creating Livable Communities . 1 Setting the Stage for Doing Things Differently . 2 Portland, Oregon’s Legacy of Transit . 4 Beginnings ............................................................................4 Twentieth Century .....................................................................6 Transit’s Decline. 8 Bucking National Trends in the Dynamic 1970s . 11 New Institutions for a New Vision .......................................................12 TriMet Is Born .........................................................................14 Shifting Gears .........................................................................17 The Freeway Revolt ....................................................................18 Sidebar: The TriMet and City of Portland Partnership .......................................19 TriMet Turbulence .....................................................................22 Setting a Course . 24 Capital Program ......................................................................25 Sidebar: TriMet Early Years and the Mount Hood Freeway ...................................29 The Banfield Project ...................................................................30 Sidebar: The Transportation Managers Advisory Committee ................................34 Sidebar: Return to Sender ..............................................................36
    [Show full text]