Yesterday Portland City Council approved the start of final engineering for the Streetcar Loop. The Council had actually conditionally approved this last March. The condition was that we either had to have FTA approval of the Federal dollars, or Congressional earmark of those same dollars.
The facts on the ground did not quite line up with the way the conditions were written: the Senate earmarked the funds, but the House committee did not publish its results (presumably because of partisan issues around the work ‘earmark’).
This is not just an academic concern, since every month we delay adds about $500K in inflationary costs to the project. So today Council voted 4-0 to move the project forward!
Meanwhile, the District working groups for the Streetcar System Plan want YOUR input on potential corridors. Take one or more of our web surveys…
Curious about potential streetcar corridors?
Take the Portland Streetcar Survey for your part of town!
Surveys for North Portland, Northeast Portland, East Portland and Southeast Portland are available at http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/streetcarsystemplan.
Help the Portland Office of Transportation (PDOT) prioritize potential future streetcar corridors throughout the city. As part of the PDOT Streetcar System Plan (SSP) effort, DISTRICT STREETCAR SURVEYS are now available on the SSP website:
http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/streetcarsystemplan.Please take the survey(s) for the area(s) where you live, work or own property.
These surveys were created by citizen-led District Working Groups (DWG) as an informal assessment of community support for potential streetcar corridors. This information about public support will be added to technical data that considers the level of service possible, anticipated ridership, compatibility with the existing transportation system, and opportunities for sustainable neighborhood development along each corridor.
The results of the technical and public involvement evaluation process will guide SSP project staff in developing a long-range, conceptual plan for how future streetcar investments could be prioritized. The SSP will be updated as necessary to reflect the results of later planning efforts, such as the Bureau of Planning’s Portland Plan effort.
The surveys will remain open through Sept. 15, 2008.
Please help us get these surveys out to as many people as possible by forwarding this message to your colleagues, friends and neighbors.
0 responses to “Streetcar Loop Moves Forward, Your Input Needed on Future Routes”
How very Portland of them. “We don’t know if we have the money or not, but we’re going ahead anyway!”
That’s our city government in a nutshell. $5B in debt, and growing.
http://portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=121928000158827600
Congrats Chris. This is a great project with wide neighborhood and business community support, so a no brainer for council. Once we get the “Rs” out of the way in Washington, more projects like this that help to rebuild our cities can move forward.
Chris Smith wrote: Surveys for North Portland, Northeast Portland, East Portland and Southeast Portland are available at http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/streetcarsystemplan.
So apparently not only does my City Hall not care about my part of town, but I also have no way to provide my comments to City Hall.
Nice.
Erik, we’ve been over this before. There was a SW district meeting and the participants involved (I wasn’t there, but if you want a list you can probably ask for it) decided not to continue further along in the streetcar process. This does not mean SW won’t see improved transit, it just means that there won’t be an accelerated process to plan for streetcars there. Other forms of transit improvements are still possible.
You can still provide your comments at any time. All the contact info is right there on the Streetcar System Plan pages.
Just a week or so ago you complained vigorously that a SW streetcar system plan meeting was not located sufficiently south and west. Nonetheless, there was a meeting, and it was located close to transit at a well-known location, and it was well publicized, well in advance.
Including here.
And as you know, there is still discussion and planning going on for a possible streetcar route through Johns Landing to Lake Oswego. That has its own series of meetings, open to the public. That’s in SW, too. That process predates the Streetcar System Plan process, and is still on-going.
The problem with the survey is that it is designed to part of a stacked deck process. There appears to be no way a participant can say none of the above, I do not want streetcars at all in my neighborhood, and instead support other options such as electric trolley busses for a specific street, Therefore, anyone who takes the survey automatically is logged as a streetcar supporter and will become part of a numbers game used to promote future streetcar lines. This is very typical of the way the Adams regime does business – a tricked up one-sided survey that can be answered in only one direction where the true purpose of the survey is anything but transparent.
Moreover, this mode centric fascination Adams has with building a his new toy, a full sized Lionel train set of expensive streetcars, is circumventing a public discussion and the consideration of other transit mode alternatives that could do the same job using a lot less of the taxpayers money. Comparisons need to take place that include assessments and evaluations of other modes in contrast to streetcars in the areas of cost per passenger mile, energy used for construction, the eco effects of construction, etc. It should also be noted that many of the current bus routes that extend out from the central city generally follow former streetcar patterns and routes that were established nearly a century ago. Therefore, the sense of permanence about as it relates to only streetcars as is being touted by Adams and others is pure pathological rhetoric and poppycock as is the propaganda about streetcars promoting development. It is all the cheap and discounted land, the tax breaks and property tax abatements handed out like free candy by PDC and the City Council that is promoting the kind of development density advocates want. An audit of Metro’s program demonstrates how loosely the money is distributed. All said, this mono-directional process route Adams is taking is extremely slanted and anything but an open public process.
As for earmarking the funds for the congestion creating Eastside Streetcar, that puts the streetcar project on the same level as that famous earmark funded bridge in Alaska and a Teapot Museum where a Congressman used earmarking to Federally fund that project for his state
Terry says: There appears to be no way a participant can say none of the above, I do not want streetcars at all in my neighborhood
From the NE District survey —
Question 6: “If the streetcar was an option in Northeast, would you use it:”
[…] Never
Question 8: “Do you have any concerns about streetcars?”
(Free-form text answer allowed.)
Question 11: “Using the map provided, please rank by number the corridors you think should be a priority for a streetcar route (1 being the highest priority). For those corridors that you don’t think are appropriate for streetcar, don’t mark them at all.” (Emphasis added.)
From the SE District survey:
Question 1: “Do you see Streetcar as a worthwhile investment for Southeast Portland?”
Yes No Maybe/Need more information
Question 2. “Do you see streetcar as a worthwhile investment for the City as a whole?”
Yes No Maybe/Need more information
Question 6 allows participants to rank concerns about streetcar corridors on an individual basis from 1 – “Not significant challenge/concern” to 5 – “Very significant challenge/concern”, including:
The surveys were developed directly from input form participants in the workshops.
Seems to me that there is plenty of opportunity to voice an opinion without being branded a “supporter”, including the specific opinion that you don’t want streetcars at all.
Further, from the East District survey:
Question 3-2: “On a scale of 1-5, what type of transportation would you prefer to use for commuting?”
Max / Streetcar / Bus / Automobile / Bike / Walk
Question 3-3 is similar but for “Shopping, errands, daily activities”.
Question 3-6: “In what areas of East Portland do you believe a streetcar may be beneficial to the community and business? (Check all that apply).”
One possible choice is: “Streetcar would not be beneficial in any area of East Portland.”
Question 4-1: “Do you think Streetcar would be more beneficial on main streets (122nd, Foster, Powell, Stark, Sandy, etc.) or on nearby secondary streets (136th, Holgate, Fremont, etc.)?”
One possible choice is: “No Streets at All”
From the North District survey:
Question 6: “Do you see streetcar as a worthwhile investment for North Portland?”
Yes No Maybe/Need more information
Please explain
Question 7: “Do you see streetcar as a worthwhile investment for the City as a whole?”
Yes No Maybe/Need more information
Please explain
Although they differ (as the result of different groups of people meeting in a public process), each survey provides a mechanism as part of the main questions for expressing disapproval.
re a SW Streetcar, I was out that way the other day for the Multnomah School reunion. Capital Hwy between Hillsdale and the Village would be a great streetcar route. Start the line at Burlingame with a connection to whatever HCT Eric gets out Barbur, follow Bertha to the west end of Hillsdale, go up and over the old viaduct with a stop by all those old commercial buildings that came with the Red Electric, then head out Capital Hwy, stopping at the Jewish Community Center, thru Multnomah, ove the old Oregon Electric overpass and on to West Portland or PCC, again with a connection at Barbur to LRT or BRT.
Would be a lovely ride, would calm traffic and would tie two designated “town centers” together nicely.
Ok Bob, I missed the line on the NE survey that read ”For those corridors that you don’t think are appropriate for streetcar, don’t mark them at all.“ I guess if a person leaves this whole section blank, it us measured as zero support for streetcars. It seems strange however that per your posts, some of the other district surveys have more interactive questions that allows the survey participant to make objections. Why are the surveys so different?
Why are the surveys so different?
Because each district had its own members of the public who had direct input into designing the surveys. This came after direct canvassing of a smaller number of businesses and residents. Each set of attendees decided what would be important to ask.
Although I am involved in my NE neighborhood (Rose City Park), for historical reasons based on my involvement with those advocating for a Hawthorne streetcar, I primarily attended the SE District meetings.
And NE District Question 8, “Do you have any concerns about streetcars?”, seemed to be a great opportunity to be counted as being opposed to streetcars, and to state the dimensions/qualifiers of that opposition.
Bob R. wrote This does not mean SW won’t see improved transit, it just means that there won’t be an accelerated process to plan for streetcars there
OK, then where is the City of Portland’s “Southwest Portland Transit” survey that represents Portland’s proposed investment in non-Streetcar (specifically, bus) improvements?
Certainly, if SW Portland is in line for transit investments, the City of Portland would have a vested interest in knowing our desires and have a survey to find out what we wanted, even if not a streetcar…right?
Lenny Anderson wrote Capital Hwy between Hillsdale and the Village would be a great streetcar route
Do you think the residents along Capitol Highway want their street torn up (with no alternate routes) for a Streetcar, when improvements to the 44-Capitol Highway bus would have the same impact with no traffic disruptions?
Keep in mind that the 44 line is one of TriMet’s more heavily used bus lines, despite being a non-frequent service route (it runs at 20 minute intervals). Also, the two bridges on Capitol Highway (at Multnomah Boulevard and Bertha Boulevard) are weight-restricted to 80,000 pounds. According to the Skoda datasheet for the T-10 Streetcar, the normal operating weight is 85,800 pounds. So using the existing bridges would not be feasible and both structures would have to be completely replaced (again, at great disruption to the community) before a single Streetcar could operate.
40,000 pound TriMet busses, on the other hand, have no such problem. Even a New Flyer DE60LF (low floor, articulated, hybrid-electric) bus weighs in at 63,880 maximum vehicle weight. The DE60LF has 62 seats and two external bike positions, while the Streetcar only has 30 seats and two internal bike positions. The Streetcar does have a higher standee capacity (171 maximum passengers, 157 is the “normal” maximum; the bus has a maxium of 115 which is identical to the Streetcar’s “medium maximum capacity”), but is that really a desirable trait?
How come I get this feeling of deja vu every time i come over to this site?
Keep in mind that the 44 line is one of TriMet’s more heavily used bus lines, despite being a non-frequent service route (it runs at 20 minute intervals).
Actually, 44C normally runs every 15 minutes during the day on weekdays and 30 minutes on weekends. Since (based on my first-hand knowledge of the route) a majority of the ridership is generated by PCC-Sylvania, Wilson HS, Gray MS, Jackson MS, and (to a lesser extent) Markham ES; weekday frequency over this summer (June-August) was changed to every 18 minutes.
Once again, I think the reason there aren’t more “pro-bus” discussions in transportation meetings geared towards the general public is because outside of transit-dependent riders for whatever reason (no license, no car, can’t afford either, etc.) and bus enthusiasts, the remainder of the general public isn’t going to be interested… they’ve either heard horror stories, live near a crummy route, or tried it themselves years ago and didn’t like it. The best thing we can do is try to explain to the general public who still pays $4 a gallon without blinking, thinking otherwise, or came from a region/family that regards buses as being for “other people,” is explain to them how buses are for them, too.
“the remainder of the general public isn’t going to be interested”
BINGO!
That would be about 99.9% of the general public who couldn’t care less about any of this.
See, they’re more interested in stuff like the “blazers” and the “Olympics”, stuff that has absolutely no relevance to their lives other than giving them some sort false sense of;
“pride” (nationalism and all that nonsense);
stuff that I couldn’t give a rats ass about.
More on the great advantages of rail transport:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/08/seattle_monorail_train_resumes.html#preview
More on the great advantages of the City of Portland wonderful planning processes:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/08/potholes_multiply_in_paving_dr.html
More on the truth about streetcars, its all about
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
not about TRANSIT!
http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/082408/bus_470453.shtml
Associated Press – August 22, 2008 10:05 AM ET
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) – The city of Portland is moving ahead on a new streetcar project even though the federal government is dragging its feet.
The Portland City Council has approved $6.3 million for the final design of the Eastside Streetcar Loop that would connect downtown transit with the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry.
Federal funding remains uncertain for $147 million, 3.3-mile project after final design already has been delayed two months pending approval of $75 million from the Federal Transportation Administration.
In June, A federal study of the project’s cost effectiveness found it didn’t meet the transporation agency’s funding requirements.
The Oregon congressional delegation is attempting to bypass the process, while City Commissioner Dan Saltzman says the project is worth the financial risk.
The Streetcar I image in SW would not replace the 44, just as the existing line does not replace the 77. And there are alternate routes out there when you look for them…35th, Capital Hill Rd., etc. I sure construction issues could be managed. And more density is already comming to some of that corridor and a streetcar would just “fit” in terms of speed and scale. One of the big issues on Capital Hwy is traffic speed, so a Streetcar could help there.
Lenny Anderson wrote: The Streetcar I image in SW would not replace the 44, just as the existing line does not replace the 77.
Correct, the Portland Streetcar does not replace the 77 – the 77 goes to Troutdale and doesn’t serve downtown.
Is the “Southwest Streetcar” not going to serve downtown Portland (like the 44 does)? And what streets would you recommend it serve; and why would you propose a project that wouldn’t affect the main street but would significantly impact residential neighborhoods – the streets where kids play in the streets? Why would you invite more traffic (even Streetcars) on streets not designed for through traffic?
At least my MAX proposal for the area used historical rail alignments and major streets and still connected all of these neighborhoods together – without displacing any bus service (although it would convert two bus lines to feeder routes – the 1 and 45).
I don’t think kids play on Capital Hwy. The route would go from Burlingame Fred Meyer via Bertha to Hillsdale, then to Multnomah via Capital Hwy, then on out same to West Portland and perhaps PCC. These are arterials; Hillsdale and West Portland are “Town Centers.” I assume that HCT will go out Barbur, and that Multnomah Blvd for same is a non-starter…sorry. There will be station at Barbur and Terwilliger or thereabouts as well as in West Portland, so what you would get is easy links from HCT to retail/commerical destinations. But its just an idea that I have already spent too much time on.
44 goes from PCC to St. Johns, so the duplication would be minimal, same as with the 77 in NW.
“One of the big issues on Capital Hwy is traffic speed, so a Streetcar could help there.”
That’s amazing how you imagine that the streetcar could help traffic.
John E. said:
That’s amazing how you imagine that the streetcar could help traffic.
Because faster-moving traffic is always better, right?
You must have missed the point or you aren’t familiar with the neighborhoods in that part of Portland and what concerns they have had about speeding traffic on Capitol Highway for years. Streetcar along Capitol would help to slow traffic, thus assisting with the speed problem along Capitol – yes, traffic moves too quickly – an issue that is frequently a complaint at neighborhood association meetings.
In this scenario, contrary to your sarcastic perspective, streetcar would indeed be “helping” traffic along the street in question, just not in a way that you might consider to be “helping.”
Wow I’m shocked. Someone here thinks slowing, calming and congesting traffic is helping it.
Perfect.
However, as you fantasize that there will be a net benefit to traffic, the new and more congested traffic will only worsen the overall problem eventualy turning into yet another choke point like so many others around the region.
And with the additional cost of the usual subsidized Transit Oriented Development to follow the taxpayer cost will be enormous and unjustified.
There’s other concerns, of course, beyond getting from A to B quickly. Safety is a big one, which is why we have speed limits in the first place.
Capitol Highway, as the name indicates, was once the primary route from Portland to the south. It hasn’t been a “highway” of any sort for eons; its role as a principal arterial long eclipsed by other routes such as Barbur, I-5, Macadam, and even Terwilliger. It functions primarily as a neighborhood street.
But like many neighborhood streets that attract through traffic, it attracts its share of leadfoots who care not one whit for the safety of anyone else.
So yes–traffic calming, appropriately applied, is a useful safety device. And no–it isn’t done to annoy motorists out of their cars and onto the bus. But it is done to annoy them out of speeding through someone else’s neighborhood.
If Capitol Hwy can be linked to the current Streetcar, great idea. Otherwise it’s kind of a waste if it takes a tram to do so.
Let’s build the WES from Beaverton to Forest Grove if we’re going to waste that kind of cash.
“But like many neighborhood streets that attract through traffic, it attracts its share of leadfoots who care not one whit for the safety of anyone else.”
It also attracts overflow-cut through traffic from congested thoroughfares and freeways.
That’s what congestion does. Ruins neighborhoods as well as clogs the system.
Traffic calming ignores the overflow.
“Let’s build the WES from Beaverton to Forest Grove if we’re going to waste that kind of cash.”
Yeah and make sure no WES performance audit is conducted.
It’s my understanding the public transit makes virtually no dent in automobile traffic whatsoever.
It’s such a small effect that it is almost immeasurable.
HWY 84, 26, 5 are all nightmares even though each of those corridors are served by a max line.
Streetcars and/or light rail only serves the tiniest % of the general population and will make no difference in vehicle density.
I continue to propose that all future funds be put into widening the existing roadways and the additional lanes used for bus rapid transit during peak hours and for the rest of the public during off peak hours.
Al, let’s start with an expressway thru Lake Oswego linking Clackamas county with Kruse Woods.
What you fail to note, among other things, is that drivers on 26, 84 and 5 have an option or at least some of them do…so they are choosing to endure their congestion pain. Must not be too bad. More roads…thru whose neighborhood? Not mine, not LO, I am sure. Freeways were built thru the poorest and most defenseless communities, but times have changed. ODOT was even unable to push thru a widening of 99E thru SE Portland some years ago. More lanes is a non-starter; ODOT has no money; and no community wants them.
It’s good to remember the lesson learned by Frank Ivancie many years ago, when he was advocating construction of the Mt. Hood Freeway, and basing his mayoral campaign on this issue.
Ivancie forgot that the folks who would benefit the most–Gresham commuters–couldn’t vote for him in the Portland mayoral election.
Meanwhile, the inner SE residents whose neighborhood was slated for decimation in order to build the Mt. Hood Freeway–could vote, and voted for Neil Goldschmidt.
One of the strenghts of a mass transit line, compared to a new expressway or freeway, is the former is far less disruptive to existing neighborhoods. And there isn’t any route into town on which a new freeway can be easily plopped, that wouldn’t utterly destroy some existing neighborhood. Some expressways might be convertable-to-freeways without too much damage (99E, for instance, is mostly access-controlled already), but there’s no place to build a new route.
And Al–if all the folks who presently ride MAX into town were instead on I-5, US26, or I-84–do you seriously think that it wouldn’t take a bad problem and make it far worse?
Gentlemen;
I am NOT ADVOCATING INCREASING HIGHWAY CAPACITY ALONE! And not making new highways, just adding to existing highways.
I am advocating doing that ONLY WITH THE PROVISION of adding bus rapid transit also!
Killing two birds with one stone so to speak!
Al
You guys just don’t realize that taking transit IS NOT FUN!
It’s scary, it’s dangerous (occasionally), and its inconvenient!
Now unless there is a total shut off of gas supplies, or gas goes through the roof (like 10 bucks a gallon), people are not going to stop driving.
We can’t just ignore the motorists and take all the money for mass transit while the highways choke themselves to death!
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1219717515269230.xml&coll=7
Oh, I know transit isn’t fun.
OTOH, neither is driving, which is also occasionally scary, dangerous, and inconvenient.
And I don’t doubt that people will stop driving–even if petroleum gets more expensive than it is now, people will find something else to drive.
But part of the problem with transit (busses, rail, whatever) in Portland is that the system doesn’t have, for lack of a better term, “critical mass”. Too many trips are intractable.
The roads currently do have “critical mass”; this is in large part due to a century of extensive expenditure on road infrastructure.
There are many cities around the world, and a few in the US, where not having an auto is the more convenient choice. Many in NYC, for instance, don’t bother with car ownership–if you live downtown, parking one is much expensive; the traffic there is downright scary, and the subways and busses go anywhere in town you want to go.
I don’t think Portland will reach NYC levels of density and scale anytime soon. OTOH, we’ve reached a level of trip density that building more freeway lanes is seldom productive. Despite monstrosities like the El Toro Y, freeways with a dozen lanes in each direction are seldom helpful–especially when those lanes don’t have anywhere to go.
Putting in the new bridge to Vancouver is an example of what I am talking about!
Increases traffic flow, provides for rail, and pedestrians/bikes.
Just putting in rail and ignoring the streets is not going to help anything, of course except the developers who make a bundle every time they put one of these rail lines in.
The WES would have been wonderful, but the way they have it set up its virtually useless to ACTUALLY DECREASE TRAFFIC FLOW.
It doesn’t run often enough!
The WES will make no difference in traffic patterns.
WES should have been a MAX Red Line extension, but commuter rail was Washington County electeds’ idea, not TriMet’s or Metro’s.
The CRC’s dumping 40K more vehicles into N. Portland does NOT help traffic on key arterials, while extending MAX to Vancouver at least gives those poor souls a choice.
Riding the bus every day is fun (maybe not driving one), MAX is fast enough and reliable, and Streetcar is a bit of easy going street theatre when I need a break from the office. Only riding a bike is more fun, though I do have fond memories of my BMW 1602…Vrooom, vroom!
“It’s my understanding the public transit makes virtually no dent in automobile traffic whatsoever. It’s such a small effect that it is almost immeasurable.”
Even Jim K says that Westside MAX adds 0.6 lanes to 26, (on top of what the buses did before it was built,) and TTI acknowledge that congestion would be more than doubled without TriMet… And these are people that are in favor of more roads. When you start talking to people that are pro-transit, you’ll get higher numbers. So where did you get this understanding?
Riding the bus every day is fun (maybe not driving one), MAX is fast enough and reliable, and Streetcar is a bit of easy going street theatre when I need a break from the office.
Keep in mind, that’s just one side. I’ve never thought, “I’m bored, I’m going to take the 77 to Troutdale to kill some time.” The only exceptions I can make were for the grand opening of the Buffalo (NY) Subway about 20 years ago, and to take the tram for no reason other than to do so.
I have on the other hand thought, “It would be a nice day to go for a drive.” No destination, I just felt like going out and doing nothing in the car. No stops anywhere other than to stretch my legs or take a picture, because neither is safe to do while driving. My only destination is back to where I started.
Sometimes I’ll pass a restaurant and decide to stop in, but it’s not something I usually plan for if I’m just going for a drive.
That said, transit is completely utilitarian to me, other than the Tram, but I enjoy going for a drive around Lake Vancouver or along the Historic Columbia River Hwy. If TriMet can provide a satisfactory level of service (when considering drive time, parking costs, time to find parking, weather, etc) I’ll choose them for most trips, but it’s only because it serves it’s purpose of connecting people to their destination effectively.
When I had a convertible I liked driving enough that I tried to find a new route every time I drove anywhere.
I still fairly often (a few times a month) take a scenic route home from work. The last one was from I-5, through St Johns, and across the St Johns Bridge and back US-30, about 10 miles. For no reason at all but because it’s enjoyable to me.
Maybe I should stop making jokes at the Tram’s expense, it’s the only transit in Portland I’ve taken a tourist out of their way to see…
You guys just don’t realize that taking transit IS NOT FUN!
It’s scary, it’s dangerous (occasionally), and its inconvenient!
You apparently don’t realize “fun” is subjective. Taking transit isn’t “fun” for you. It’s a fair amount of fun for me, at least when the line first opens and I want to explore where it takes me.
Besides, I’ve been riding MAX twice a day, on average, for a couple of decades. Sometimes it’s fun, getting into good conversation with other riders, or just relaxing and watching the world go by without having to worry about traffic. As for the other stuff… scary? Nope. Dangerous? Maybe one a decade, and no more than walking down the street. Inconvenient? It’s practically door-to-door service from home to work, and I don’t need to pay for parking. (Or a car, for that matter). That sounds pretty damn convenient to me.
But according to Al, I just don’t realize that I’m not actually having fun when I’m having fun, that I’m not actually safe when I’m safe, that I’m in danger when I’m not in danger, and the most convenient way for me to get to work is actually inconvenient.
[Moderator: Italics corrected.]
Joseph Edge wrote: Streetcar along Capitol would help to slow traffic, thus assisting with the speed problem along Capitol – yes, traffic moves too quickly
Exactly where is this supposed speed problem on Capitol Highway?
And, exactly how does a Streetcar change this – that a transit bus can’t already do?
There is absolutely no reason (other than political) that Metro/City of Portland/TriMet could not THIS DAY spend less than $1 million to build out improved “Streetcar-Style” bus stops along the 44 route, which eliminate bus pullouts, improve pedestrian safety to/from bus stops, include more crosswalks, provide shelters and other enhanced amenities, and even schedule the 44 as a Frequent Service line which would not only increase transit ridership, but put more busses on the road slowing traffic.
$1 million.
Not $50 million.
$1 million.
(Note: This writer has a home address on S.W. Capitol Highway.)
Erik Halstead says:
Exactly where is this supposed speed problem on Capitol Highway?
And, exactly how does a Streetcar change this – that a transit bus can’t already do?
When I attended neighborhood association meetings in Far Southwest (when I lived out there a few years back), the complaints were limited to the stretch of Capitol from Barbur to 49th, where it is two lanes in each direction, because elsewhere would be outside of the neighborhood.
From my own personal experience, having worked in that part of town for 10+ years, I can attest that the stretch of Capitol north of Barbur and into Hillsdale is often treated as a speedway. I’ve seen plenty of police monitoring that stretch of road with radar, as well as homemade signs attached to mailboxes demanding that drivers “slow down.” I’ve even been rear-ended in Multnomah Village while I was waiting to turn left into the community center parking lot. Had the driver not been exceeding the posted speed limit of 20mph, I doubt he would have needed to lock up his brakes to avoid colliding with me.
I’m not advocating for any specific solution to this problem, I was simply pointing out that Lenny’s suggestion had merit in concept. John E. rhetorically disputed that streetcar could solve any traffic problem whatsoever. In this particular context, where the neighborhood associations, residents, businesses, and police all seem to agree that the speed limit is not obeyed on this road, and thus a “traffic problem,” a streetcar could indeed be utilized to “solve” that specific problem. Congestion may worsen (and I’m certain it would), but the stated problem of excessive speed would be solved. It’s simply a matter of context.
As you have mentioned, and I neglected to get into initially, there are several potential solutions to the consensus “traffic problem” of excessive speed in this corridor. Streetcar is definitely NOT the most cost-effective solution to that problem, and if the solitary goal is to reduce speed along Capitol Highway then I would NOT support using a streetcar for that purpose. You could pop in some speed bumps, the PFD wouldn’t like it, but it would definitely slow people down. In that vein there are several options that would be worth considering. However, if a Capitol Highway streetcar were the goal, slowing traffic would be a byproduct of the streetcar, and that would certainly slow traffic and probably would solve that particular “traffic problem.”
Yes Eric, let’s see a better 44 now at not much cost, but it will not attract investment in housing and/or commerical development that streetcar seems able to attract. Maybe that’s OK and my idea should die. It boils down to what the residents and business folks of SW, of Hillsdale, Multnomah, West Portland in particular, want and will support with LIDs.
No development, no LID; no LID, no streetcar. These are the hard fact for every streetcar dream on the map. Unless the City goes to the voters with a Streetcar bond issue for local matching funds.
Just like with the street renaming process where the City Council ignored the procedures and sought to dictate the change, the same is true of PDOT when it comes to built out bus stops wedging in streetcars on city streets. The City Council set a policy goal to reduce fuel consumption city wide. Yet when busses and streetcars stop in motor vehicle travel lanes to board passengers, they obstruct other traffic which creates congestion and increases engine idle times thereby making transit operations responsible for increasing fuel consumption by motorists.
Additionally, the City Council also has set policy goals to reduce engine idle times. Therefore, by adding curb extensions or building out the sidewalks at transit stops is contradictory to these policy goals in addition to being less eco friendly than having transit vehicles pull over to the curb or use pullouts to allow the roadway remain free flowing. PDOT and TriMet ought to be required to do an environmental impact analysis every time they want to create a transit stop where transit vehicles must stop in travel lanes that obstructs other traffic when boarding passengers. The City of San Francisco was taken to court by one individual on similar issues as it relates to the congestion created by adding bike lanes to streets. The judge ordered just such an analysis each and every time a bike lane is proposed. Portland needs to be required to do that too.
It is sort of like the straw that broke the camels back. Add a transit stop curb extension here and a bike lane there, a little bit more congestion behind a bus or streetcar here and a motor vehicle travel lane taken away there with no new motor vehicle capacity added to accommodate increasing population growth; and all the little bits and take-a-aways add up to gridlock with a lot of engines idling and people going no where. As it stands now, the afore mentioned City Council policy goals are pure rhetoric because of a less than impartial transportation commissioner that would rather dictate transportation choices to the public instead of requiring PDOT planners to adhere to such policy goals. The City Council needs to stop acting like socialist dictators while PDOT needs tear up and remove the existing built out curb extended transit stops, and construct more transit turnouts to keep this city moving forward and congestion from taking its toll on everybody.
It is pure propaganda that streetcars themselves stimulate development. It is the cheap land provided by PDC at taxpayer expense, tax breaks and property tax abatements that reduce other government services and take money away from schools that stimulates the development. The same financing methods could be used along any motor vehicle arterial in town. Any development that occurs needs to be market based and without taxpayer subsidies. Moreover, streetcars need to be financially self-sustainable, paying their own way with passenger fares that reflect the actual costs of providing the service. NO LID, NO parking meters and NO taxpayer subsidized congestion creating streetcars is all just fine with me. Portland property owners are over taxed and the City is already too over populated.
A blog entry on the lawsuit Terry mentions can be found here.
It should be noted that the suit appears to be based upon California environmental law, not federal law, and may not directly apply to Oregon. I couldn’t find any copies of the lawsuit or court order online.
And, the project that is being delayed is one in which wholesale re-striping of auto lanes into bike lanes is being proposed throughout the city, including on major thoroughfares with high traffic counts. So I’ll agree that some environmental review is warranted.
I think I can name on one hand the cases where bike lanes replaced motor vehicle lanes, and in most of those cases it was underutilized motor vehicle capacity. In Portland’s relatively timid bike program, motor vehicle capacity has been hardly touched.
Curb extensions are a benefit to transit riders, to pedestrians, to local businesses, and of course, are sited primarily on transit streets. If they slow a trip for a motorist…well that’s the point; safety is or should be #1!… maybe motorists should try a non-transit street or a 4 lane transit street…we have plenty of them.
The case can be made that improving bike and transit facilities actually reduces motor vehicle trips by attracting more bike and transit riders. Portland has demonstrated that, and then its just as simple as when I bike or ride the bus, I leave my car at home…one less car.
Lenny must have a lot of fingers on one big hand. The following is a short list (less then complete) of where motor vehicle lanes were removed to accommodate bike lanes.
The Burnside Bridge
SE 7th Avenue
NE 12th Avenue Sandy to Benson High
NE Glisan 33rd to Sandy
NE 122nd North of Sandy
N Vancouver various locations
NE Broadway Westbound one-way grid
NE Weidler Eastbound one-way grid
N Vancouver various locations
N Denver
Population growth in the Portland area is mushrooming at an extreme rate. It is highly probable that any car left behind due to an individual choosing another mode of transport is likely to have two or more cars taking its place on the roads. The expectation that taxpayer subsidized alternative modes of transport can take the place of additional needed motor vehicle capacity on the roads is a theme park fantasy Therefore, the divisive “one less car” catchphrase bicyclists attempt to insert into the conversation only attributes to “one less taxpayer” paying for the roads they use and benefit from. That phrase alone demonstrates and supports the need for a hefty bicycle tax.
Furthermore, the propaganda that curb extensions have any real positive benefit (other than making it a shorter distance to cross a street) comes from the same socialist political mindsets that aspire to dictate and control the lifestyles, housing and transport choices of others, through the tax code or otherwise, and then claim by riding a bike none of the rules apply to them. In reality, curb extensions that require transit vehicles to stop in travel lanes and obstruct other traffic when boarding passengers create negative eco effects due to more traffic congestion and more fuel consumed by idled engines. They slow traffic alright, to a complete stop! Therefore it is hypocrisy to suggest that Portland has a congestion/pollution problem, and then support the proliferation of curb extensions at transit stops which not only take fossil fuels to build, but also contribute to dirt and dust being spewed into the air during construction.
I can’t speak for all of the cases listed (some of them are one way streets, so the following observation doesn’t apply)–but in at least some cases, a four-lane road (with no left turn refuge) was replaced with a three-lane road (one through lane in each direction, plus a left turn refuge) plus two bike lanes.
This configuration actually makes things *better* for cars, especially on streets that don’t consistently see two full lanes of traffic in either direction. Cars in the through lane do not have to slow down because the guy in front is turning, or because of a bicycle in front of them.
Separation of bike traffic, in general, makes things better for cars.
Of course, that assumes a significant population of bike riders–which is certainly the case in Portland. Adding bike lanes in a town where nobody rides wouldn’t make much sense, but adding them here (or in SF) does.
And just to remind you: Other than roads such as freeways which are designed specifically to exclude them, bikes are vehicles and have a right to use the roads. As do pedestrians, horse-drawn buggies, and numerous other modes of transportation–regardless of whether they are regulated by ODOT or DMV, or pay as much in taxes as you think they should.
As to what “socialism” has to do with any of this, I’ve really no idea. China’s been building freeways like crazy, and last I checked the PRC still thought of itself as a communist state, though whether it is in fact is an open question. And–the construction of the extensive road network we have now was a highly socialized and communal enterprise–it wasn’t all funded with fuel taxes on motorists or by development fees. (Which is one reason the roads are so useful–nobody takes unprofitable streets out of service, or charges ridiculous fees to drive on them).
The SF case only involved a single bicycle lane, when it was brought to court. When the city realized that it was going to lose, and would have to do an environmental review for every single project, it went ahead and proposed all of the projects at once so that it would only have to do one review for all of them…
Of course, the environmental review will say that bicycle lanes are good for the environment, and everyone [except Terry] knew that already, but the suit was brought because SF didn’t do the review and it was supposed to, not because of what the review would say…
The number of projects that SF stuffed into that one review is actually pretty impressive, I’ve heard several people mention that it is probably more projects than SF would have done in the same timeframe if it had done them one at a time, (without the reviews,) so while many people are annoyed about the short term issues, in the long run it is probably good for the city.
Yes Eric, let’s see a better 44 now at not much cost, but it will not attract investment in housing and/or commerical development that streetcar seems able to attract.
I have to ask if anyone knows of any bus line that’s been completely turned into a fake streetcar line with the level of service to the level of amenities the streetcar gets, and the overall vehicle design.
I have to think that it might be a good thing for Portland to try. We like to talk about how we’re trying new things in transit, right? Plus we have local businesses like Oregon Iron Works and Freightliner that probably could make something, so it’s good for the local economy right away also.
Don’t even call it a bus line, call it the Capitol Highway Urban Mover of People or something. Maybe it will a lower rate of development, but if it’s done cheap enough it might still be a better return on investment for existing neighborhoods that we don’t want to be styled like the Pearl or SoWa, but can take on some development.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I’ve never heard of a community trying to step up a bus to a true comparison to the streetcar.
Matthew said: “Of course, the environmental review will say that bicycle lanes are good for the environment, and everyone [except Terry] knew that already, but the suit was brought because SF didn’t do the review and it was supposed to, not because of what the review would say…”
The issue as I understand it in San Francisco is about taking away a motor vehicle travel lane to add a bike lane. Therefore, depending on the street and the amount of traffic on the street using multiple lanes, the environmental review (unless rigged) could come out either way. Just like when bicyclists ignore and blow through STOP signs, they are unwilling to accept anything other than their own one-sided bias view. Since the SF case involves merging multiple lanes of motor vehicle traffic into one less travel lane, the proposal could easily create increased congestion and therefore have negative eco impact.
Most, if not all the streets cited by TP had excess capacity, so there was just unused pavement lying around which is now being put to good use for bike lanes. Remember, bike lanes are actually for motorists…they get us bikers out of their way, since otherwise, many of us will just take the lane.
This article once again proves that the streetcar has nothing to do with transit and everything to do with money, AKA economic development, which means, GENGTRIFICATION, increased density, higher land values etc.
One thing we all know for sure, the Streetcar is not really a Transit option anymore than the useless tram is.
http://www.oregonlive.com/editorials/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/121987950961810.xml&coll=7
This is a good read on pedestrian safety:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2008/08/10/the_future_of_crossing_the_street/
From the Oregonian editorial “The city is relying on the streetcar to jump-start long-stalled redevelopment on its inner eastside.”
If this is the case, then there is no need for other taxpayer funded development incentives including financially subsidizing streetcar operations from parking meters or revenue sources that do not come from the farebox. I challenge the PDC NOT to demolish any structures or clear properties along the route, or sell any PDC owned properties for anything less than real market value. I also challenge Portland city officials NOT to offer any tax breaks or property tax abatements to developers thereby actually proving to the public the rhetoric the streetcar itself will actually stimulate development. Unless they accept such a challenge, stating the streetcar stimulates development is a pure divisive propaganda lie and the public is being is being deceived with a tall tale falsehood.
Lenny Anderson wrote: but it will not attract investment in housing and/or commerical development that streetcar seems able to attract
But is Multnomah Village not already a desirable neighborhood? Hillsdale?
Maybe people don’t want five story high-rises; look at the opposition to such buildings in other successful neighborhoods like Sellwood, Belmont, Westmoreland, and even in Kenton and Mississippi that are on a MAX line.
Transportation projects are for transportation. People today have places to go. Why must transportation planning be raped of its meaning, and transportation take a back seat towards development and placating political interests and developers?
The City of Portland claims today that SW is not interested in Streetcars. Fine, and I agree with that. The City needs to provide SW with an equivalent process of transit improvements and provide the improvements I talked about, with providing bus stops with the same amenities, and improved busses. I am sure SW would be thrilled to have 100% hybrid-electric busses on these routes (which are actually VERY well suited to routes in SW – there’s a reason TriMet likes to assign their two hybrids to the 8 line) and improved sidewalks and bus stops with appropriate shelters and passenger information displays including Transit Tracker displays, lighting and so on.
Only when ALL of Portland is included in Transit Planning, and ALL of Portland gets transit improvements, can I support Streetcar improvements elsewhere. Until that time comes, the Streetcar is a discriminate form of transportation and the Mayor that used the phrase “because Portland belongs to all of us” needs to stand up and show us a plan that, well, belongs to all of us.
Developers are welcome to self-fund their own transportation projects, and if developers want to build Streetcars, developers are welcome to do so.
EngineerScotty wrote: bikes are vehicles and have a right to use the roads. As do pedestrians, horse-drawn buggies, and numerous other modes of transportation
First of all, “vehicles” have no “rights”. People have rights, and I find no such “right” other than the right to freely travel; but the said right does not define by how one has the right to travel.
That said, automobiles have no such right to freely travel either. Automobiles are certainly restricted from many locations and as a motorist I have a license that says I took a test that tested my knowledge of where and when I may legally and safely operate my motor vehicle.
All other “vehicles” have similar rules. Even horse-drawn carriages do not have free rein and are prohibited in many places. Just as bicycles are, or even pedestrians.
Is one to suggest that bikes have a right to go wherever, whenever, as they place? Why? Why not motorists, or even pedestrians? Why, shouldn’t I have the right to walk across runway 4R at Portland International Airport and expect, because of my legal status, that all air traffic (which is another form of transportation) yield right of way to me? Should I not have the right to walk down a railroad track – or MAX – and all trains MUST yield for me?
The idea of discussing “rights” is ridiculous at best. Laws exist for a reason and some of those laws define where, when and how people may travel. It is foolish to expect a train to yield to a pedestrian. Likewise, it is foolish for a bicyclist to have free rein on a road used by motor vehicles.
“Maybe people don’t want five story high-rises; look at the opposition to such buildings in other successful neighborhoods like Sellwood, Belmont, Westmoreland, and even in Kenton and Mississippi that are on a MAX line.”
In Kenton, at least, the flap wasn’t about 5 story buildings, it was about 125 foot buildings: 12 story buildings in what is currently single family housing… It is more of a question of compatibility of the uses than development in general, (most people are actually in favor of development: most people hate the fact that you can walk over to Lombard but there isn’t much worth going to over there in the first place…)
The ministries of propaganda talk about making Portland livable,
but the actual consequence of all these actions will be to achieve the opposite.
I’m getting out of Portland as soon as my property management responsibilities come to an end.
I’ve gotten to hate it here,
congestion, noise, pollution,
it’s almost as bad as Seattle,
and its only getting worse as they keep building high rises and following policies to bring money into the city. (aka streetcars for developers)
This article appeared in the NW Examiner, my favorite Portland paper, and it tells the story of the Portland planning process:
http://portlandoregontransitnews.blogspot.com/2008/08/truth-about-portland-planning.html
There is really no problem since if you don’t want higher density along a transit route, you can’t get streetcar anyway. End of discussion… because it is increased property values that make LIDs work. Would SW residents do LIDs to pay for more buses? I think not.
If you are in favor of decreasing property values or “degentrification”…start busting windows, painting graffiti, and welcome criminals, etc. We all know how that work, but its not something most people would wish for.
People are different. Some want lower-level development, some want high-rises. This idea sounds a bit extreme, but proves the point–should all of Downtown Portland have only two-story buildings?
I remember when there were several blank lots all around Willow Creek TC and the street in front was an extension of Salix Terrace vs. whatever it’s named now… the larger one was a private parking lot at one point. They’re now apartments, and a former co-worker said ‘I understand the idea, but they’ll just get old and the crime will move right in at some point.’ And yes, I can remember all the way back to when Eastside MAX went in, the apartment complexes went up, and everyone in housing advertising were saying, ‘you absolutely must live in Rockwood!’ Then came the fatal shooting at what I believe was Rockwood Station Apartments.
I don’t think it’s the quality of the development, it’s the quality of those that will inhabit it.
Its really all about design and management, and we all need to upgrade our “density ettiquette(sp?)” from time to time.
Lenny said: “Most, if not all the streets cited by TP had excess capacity, so there was just unused pavement lying around which is now being put to good use for bike lanes.”
And now on most if not all of these streets, there is less per person use of the pavement allocated for bikes than there was as a motor vehicle travel lanes. Furthermore, it should be the freeloading bicyclists through a bicycle tax that now pay for the pavement the motorists can no longer use.
Eric said/asked: “Transportation projects are for transportation. People today have places to go. Why must transportation planning be raped of its meaning, and transportation take a back seat towards development and placating political interests and developers?”
Eric’s premise is correct, transportation projects need to be designed for the movement of people and goods, not as a development tool.
Matthew said: “In Kenton, at least, the flap wasn’t about 5 story buildings, it was about 125 foot buildings: 12 story buildings in what is currently single family housing.”
Kenton would be a good place for extra tall buildings – all with big windows that look directly down on Sam Adams’ house and backyard garden.
al m said: “The ministries of propaganda talk about making Portland livable, but the actual consequence of all these actions will be to achieve the opposite.”
Al too is correct. Livability is a subjective term meaning different things to different people. Special interest density and streetcar advocates when preaching livability use propaganda to force their own views on society. They want somebody else other than themselves to pay for their mobility and transport choices. Most of the density advocates however do not actually live in the high density heat island projects they want others to live in. It is the elitist NIMBY version of live where I want you to live, not where I live.
“Transportation projects are for transportation. People today have places to go. Why must transportation planning be raped of its meaning, and transportation take a back seat towards development and placating political interests and developers?”
This is like saying people work in jobs because they need money. Yes, that is true, but if you look at why they actually need the money you get a much better understanding of the problem. If you don’t do that, then you’ll think that everyone would prefer an extra $100/month than getting medical benefits, even though most people would choose the medical benefits…
So, if you look at why people are going places, you realize that most of them are going to developments, and so if you worry about the development at the same time as you look at transportation, then suddenly that gives very different ideas about what is/isn’t a good idea.
And, “raped of its meaning”? Seriously?
Matthew wrote: So, if you look at why people are going places, you realize that most of them are going to developments, and so if you worry about the development at the same time as you look at transportation, then suddenly that gives very different ideas about what is/isn’t a good idea.
What’s your definition of “development”?
Are you seriously suggesting that the majority of Portland’s transit riders are going to the “developments” that are often cited as “developments”, like the not-quite-developed SoWa, or the Pearl District? Certainly, Bridgeport Village qualifies as a development, as does the Streets of Tanasbourne, or Washington Square, or Lloyd Center, or even Westfield Shoppingtown Vancouver (a.k.a. Vancouver Mall).
There are many people who go from a single-family house or maybe even a small non-complex apartment building, to a detached workplace. Maybe it’s a standalone grocery store, or a restaurant, or a big-box store. Maybe it’s a small office building. Or a high school. Are those also “developments”?
People go from point “A” to point “B”. What points “A” and “B” are, are different for everybody. Not everyone in Portland aspires to go to the Pearl District and SoWa. (I, in fact, make it a point to avoid them; and I know few people who enjoy going there. And my employer is located on the Streetcar line.) My co-workers work with me not because it is located in a development, it’s because it’s a job that happens to be located there; my employer could very well relocate itself to another part of Portland, or even outside of the city. In fact, a large part of our operations exist outside of Portland and when the lease is up, it wouldn’t faze me if our company moved out.
Then again, having space rented in a government building (which usually means it’s a little cheaper than market rate) helps out.
“Certainly, Bridgeport Village qualifies as a development, as does the Streets of Tanasbourne, or Washington Square, or Lloyd Center, or even Westfield Shoppingtown Vancouver (a.k.a. Vancouver Mall).”
Did I ever say it didn’t? And are you arguing that Washington Square would exist as it is today even if there weren’t 3 freeway exits and a transit center there? Cause I’m fairly sure that freeways and transit centers qualify as transportation as much as Washington Square qualifies as development.
More importantly, are those 3 freeway exits and the parking for all those cars cheaper than a streetcar line?
Matthew, what about the OTHER places that people are going to?
Or do you have no argument for that? Those small offices that are standalone? Those standalone grocery stores?
Certainly, I can only expect for you to tell me that the dozens of stops on the 12 line (which doesn’t serve, by your apparent “definition” of “development”) doesn’t serve anyone, because the 12 line isn’t a MAX line and therefore nobody rides the bus (nevermind the standing room only bus I was in yesterday).
No, I’m not arguing against Washington Square, it is certainly a destination, but so is my (single-family) house. So is my office building. So is a park. So is a grocery store. So is the children’s clothing store that my wife likes to shop at that isn’t at a mall. So is a gas station. So is a library. So is a museum. So are so many other locations that aren’t within a “development”. I don’t work at Washington Square, it is maybe a once-a-month destination for me. So how does planning for a Streetcar line to a shopping mall serve me when I need to get to work?
In Portland’s view, the answer is “who cares?” because as you agree with, transportation isn’t about getting people from where they are, to where they need to be. It’s about development. Freeways weren’t built with development in mind, development followed the freeways. In the case of the Streetcar, massive tax breaks are given to developers to build along the Streetcar line, because the demand clearly wouldn’t exist without the carrot. The MAX line still has numerous holes of underdeveloped land in areas where the tax breaks aren’t available (Beaverton is a good example); clearly proximity to mass transit isn’t such a good thing.
But despite the clamor over the health effects of living next to a freeway, a lot of developments have sprung up next to the freeway – because the freeway is merely a high-volume artery that connects other arteries and vessels to reach the final destination; the freeway itself rarely provides the direct “point A to point B” interface but combined with local streets, it is a major part of it.
How many trips are taken using exclusively TriMet from point to point, including bus connections? The total percentage of trips taken by transit in Portland is 4%. Now, are you suggesting that we build more streetcar lines to these developments for the sake of the developments, or should we improve what transit we have, add transit to underserved areas, improve the transit experience, increase transit capacity and reliability, and make transit more friendly?
I’ll happily forego subsidizing developments, because I’d rather follow Warren Buffett’s “think long” strategy of investing, even if you lose a few battles in the war, rather than the day-trader’s “think short” strategy that rarely yields long term results but looks great for a couple of days.
Eric said: “Freeways weren’t built with development in mind, development followed the freeways. In the case of the Streetcar, massive tax breaks are given to developers to build along the Streetcar line, because the demand clearly wouldn’t exist without the carrot.”
Right on bro! You hit the nail squarely on the head. I could not have said it better myself.
Eric said: “The MAX line still has numerous holes of underdeveloped land in areas where the tax breaks aren’t available (Beaverton is a good example); clearly proximity to mass transit isn’t such a good thing.”
Yes, Eric, and I saw some undeveloped land next to some sunflowers today. People must really hate living near sunflowers.
As far as development goes, if the Interstate Highway system had instead been developed as high capacity rail, would development not have followed? We subsidize transit regardless of mode (despite Terry’s assertions to the contrary), and the point is that development around transit is different from roads. Many people see transit oriented development as superior to auto oriented development, although some people do not.
I realize that Terry and Eric are objecting to the subsidies for property, not just the transit itself. But I think it’s naive to think that a city isn’t going to subsidize development. I would not be surprised if Washington Square Mall or Clackamas Town Center received subsidies for their construction simply because a city always sees development as a good thing. Sam Adams and friends have chosen to subsidize a type of development they see as superior.