Trimess

Trimess
FOLLOW THE TWITTER FEED FOR UPDATES

Monday, October 27, 2014

Metro says "We're fixing Cornelius"...then backtracks and says "Oh, this wasn't us"

Let's start with Metro, proudly proclaiming on Twitter that it's improving the streets of Cornelius:



Notice the bus stop next to the building on the right.  Here's a picture of the location, from Google:


Doesn't look like a very good location for a bus stop, with two driveways/loading doors right there, does it?  But, let's put a bus stop there.  Instead of the existing bus stop, east of here, that is now closed and removed:


Granted, it's next to an empty lot.  But it has a shelter, a nice sidewalk, a bench, a schedule sign...and you can walk to the city's Post Office without crossing a street.  And there is one pedestrian friendly business, the Cricket Wireless cell phone store.

But, remember Metro proclaiming how great it is?  Here's Metro's PR flack:


In typical Metro (and TriMet) double-speak - once it's revealed that they screwed up, it's time to distance themselves from the action.  It wasn't Metro's fault...no, of course not.

Never mind, that whenever Metro funds a project, there are ALWAYS strings attached.  Just try to use "Regional Funds" on a highway, but don't put in sidewalks or bike paths.  Do you think Metro will just look the other way?  Nope - they will fight you.

Once again, Metro is completely ignorant to the bus riders of our community, and here they not only created a bad bus stop, but they ruined one that, while not "great", was far better than so many existing TriMet bus stops around.  When has Metro ever paid to remove a MAX or Streetcar stop, and replace it with one that was worse than what was already there?

4 comments:

Al M said...

Good post but I had to put a page break in it...

Jason McHuff said...

Are you sure that there's no plans to put a shelter there?

Here's a picture of the location, from Google:

A picture from before, without the new sidewalk, curb extension and street lights that were put in.

two driveways/loading doors right there

The after picture clearly shows one curb cut, and it shouldn't have high traffic since it's not for customer use.

Granted, it's next to an empty lot.

Wasn't it you that complained how a Portland Streetcar stop fronts a gas station, instead of being at a building? What about how the building at the new stop provides shade?

It wasn't Metro's fault...no, of course not.

The web page clearly states that Metro only awarded funding that came from the Federal government.

Just try to use "Regional Funds" on a highway, but don't put in sidewalks or bike paths.

Not including any sidewalks or bike facilities at all is a lot different than putting a bus stop in a place you deem questionable. Awarding funding doesn't mean one has to design every detail of the project.

Overall, I do find it odd that they put the bus stop near side, especially given that the next one was removed, but the sidewalks, street crossings, street lights, trees and other things make the project an overall positive for pedestrians and bus riders.

Erik H. said...

Let's refute Jason "I am pretending to be Mr. TriMet because I am a total suck-up to TriMet" McHuff's points, AGAIN...

Are you sure that there's no plans to put a shelter there?

Why isn't the shelter there? Does TriMet open up MAX stations that are incomplete, and add amenities later? No. In fact, TriMet has installed shelters along the Orange Line for MAX stations that aren't going to open for a full year. When has TriMet ever done this for bus service?

The after picture clearly shows one curb cut, and it shouldn't have high traffic since it's not for customer use.

So, it's OK to have a loading dock cross into a bus stop, as long as it's not "for customer use"? So, it's OK as long as only delivery trucks use it, but not "customers"? I guess UPS and FedEx and other delivery trucks have never been involved in vehicle-verus-person collisions, ever. Shall I waste more of my time to refute your point further, Jason?

The web page clearly states that Metro only awarded funding that came from the Federal government.

So, Metro had absolutely zero say in any of the matters involving this project? None at all? Not even determining which projects got funded? Hmmm, I smell kiss-assery going on here. Metro absolutely has a say in any penny that crosses its budget, even as pass-through items. Metro absolutely can veto projects it does not like, and bump up projects it likes, because it does it all the time.

Show me where Metro funded a project, that didn't include a bike path or pedestrian enhancement.

Not including any sidewalks or bike facilities at all is a lot different than putting a bus stop in a place you deem questionable.

So, you're OK with Metro funding a highway project where existing sidewalks are removed? Maybe even delete a bike lane? You know, just as well as I do, that would never happen. Metro always wants to enhance "active transportation". Yet, here is clear proof that they removed transit amenities, and in fact replaced a perfectly good, serviceable bus stop with one that has a clear safety hazard.

Sure, the existing bus stop could have benefited from being spruced up - maybe a more decorative shelter, some new decorative LED light fixtures, and so on. But to remove what was working and replace it with a bus stop located in a driveway is just plain stupid.

And only someone who does nothing worthwhile with his pathetic worthless life than to kiss the ass of a stupid person, can defend this action.

Jason McHuff said...

"I am pretending to be Mr. TriMet because I am a total suck-up to TriMet"

I thought you didn't like name calling.

Why isn't the shelter there?

Why don't you ask TriMet (or maybe Cornelius or ODOT)? They seem to be the one(s) that could best provide an answer regarding what is a minor detail in the project. It appears there's plenty of room on the curb extension for one.

So, it's OK to have a loading dock cross into a bus stop

If you study the picture and look at the Google Maps satellite view, the curb cut is before where the bus should be stopping. It is for the second building, and the first one measures about 55 feet wide, or longer than the distance between the front of and rear doors of a bus.

So, Metro had absolutely zero say in any of the matters involving this project? None at all?

I did not say that. I said that Metro probably didn't go through every little detail of the project.

Metro absolutely can veto projects it does not like, and bump up projects it likes

Yes, they do choose what to fund. But that doesn't mean they pass or veto every single detail of a project they decide to support.

Show me where Metro funded a project, that didn't include a bike path or pedestrian enhancement.

That question is outside the scope of this discussion, but I believe they did help with the widening of I-84 at I-205 (specifically from the Halsey/99th exit to the I-205 north ramp).

So, you're OK with Metro funding a highway project where existing sidewalks are removed?

I did not say that I was. And where were they? In any case, I meant that not having a bus shelter put in, or putting a bus stop in a location that may be operationally questionable is a minor issue, and is not comparable to agency completely violating a grant agreement by not putting any pedestrian or bicycle infrastructure where a grant called for it.

Yet, here is clear proof that they removed transit amenities

Are you sure Metro made the decision to not have a bus shelter, and not TriMet, ODOT or the city?

And only someone who does nothing worthwhile with his pathetic worthless life than to kiss the ass of a stupid person, can defend this action.

Again, I thought you didn't like name calling.