It seems to be the worst kept secret in Portland, since Sam has run this past every conceivable stakeholder, but here’s what he will announce at his press conference in a little over an hour (the Trib put it up on their web site last night):
- He will recommend to his Council colleagues that the West Burnside couplet extend from 2nd to 19th, effectively overriding the resistance of the Archdiocese that had previously limited the couplet proposal to 15th.
- Sam will propose that Burnside should have a Streetcar from 12th/Sandy on the east side to NW 24th on the west side, and possibly that Streetcar should extend to Hollywood (via Sandy) at some point in the future.
- The new Streetcar line will have to come after the Streetcar Loop project and the LO Streetcar project (if it gets greenlighted). And ultimately the priority of this Streetcar segment will need to be determined by the city-wide rail plan process that PDOT is starting.
- The couplet can be built without, or before, the Streetcar. They are essentially separate, divisible projects, but part of Sam’s overall vision for the corridor.
I heartily applaud the result of the long wait for this recommendation. The politics of this seem to be that if Sam had to tell the folks at the Henry they need to accept the traffic on Couch, it would go down a lot better if the Catholic Church wasn’t getting a pass on the same issue. I expect that the Archdiocese will continue to oppose the project. It’s less clear to me if Gerding/Edlen and/or the Henry will.
I’m heading out the door for the press conference where all this becomes official…
88 responses to “Burnside: It’s a Couplet … to 19th … with a Streetcar”
So let’s see, the East Side Loop from whence the Hawthorne “spoke” comes out of…well, this put’s Hawthorne behind CEID, Lake Oswego (probably), and now Burnside. Can I call “line cutter?”
Healing the Burnside wound that divides downtown is critical. The couplet may irritate a few now, but after a period of adjustment we will all wonder why it took so long to take this obvious step.
If the streetcar is extended up Burnside all the way to 24th, why not instead have it turn north on 23rd and go all the way to Lovejoy, or possibly to Thurman? Would there be significant problems running a streetcar on 23rd?
I am glad to hear the proposal for the West-side couplet now extends all the way to 19th. I believe this is better from a logistical and traffic management standpoint.
However, I think it completely confuses the issue to bring discussion of the streetcar into this project, as it is clearly a separate future project. People will get confused when they hear about this and think the streetcar comes now and the expenses therefore come now.
I’m all for making sure that utility relocations and street foundations are compatible with potential future streetcar projects, but to just come out of the blue and say “this is what we’re going to do”, when so many people are _trying_ to get more of a master plan going, comes as a bit of an unpleasant surprise.
Also, I’ll 2nd what Frank says: Hawthorne needs a streetcar. The fact that Hawthorne doesn’t even have a place in line on this growing list of projects is disconcerting.
– Bob R.
At the risk of opening a whole new can of worms, purely for discussion purposes:
Given that the proposal now extends to W. 19th, what is the feasibility (political, cost, logistical) of purchasing the property abutting Burnside between 19th and Trinity Pl?
There are two tiny buildings on that corner, and the rest is mostly parking. Being able to utilize that property would allow a nice clean diagonal merge of Couch into Burnside, without the zigzag of turning left onto 19th and right onto Burnside.
Take a look at this Google Map to see what I mean.
Granted, this would only really save perhaps one signal light worth of time, but it just seems to make logical sense to me to neatly tie the grid back together that way.
I was pleased to read in the Tribune that the new traffic analysis done indicates that the couplet would _improve_ motorist travel times by 5 minutes in the westbound direction over what we have today, simply because the signals would be timed in a grid pattern. That should allay _some_ motorist objection.
– Bob R.
Well, Sam pulled a rabbit out of the hat on this.
I have been opposed to the couplet, but with a Streetcar included it works for me. However, not someday, but when the couplet is built. Regardless of who is in line where…sorry Chris.
There are a string of destinations that make an excellent fit with Streetcar…Up-Town, PGE Park, Brewery Blocks, new U of O center, the beautiful Burnside Bridge, the Bridgehead Project, happening East Burnside. But I would extend it out Burnside, not Sandy to at least 28th…another lively destination.
I agree somewhat with Lenny – I had not considered a streetcar line running down Burnside, but it seems like such a better place to put it than any of the other locations currently being discussed. It really would bring together separate areas of town, not to mention make Burnside a more lively street.
On another point, I think this type of project – combining road improvements with transit improvements – is something Portland needs to do more of. Drivers get wider lanes and faster traffic. Transit users get a streetcar line.
It seems that most of the MAX extensions that have been rejected by voters only involved transit improvements. Maybe if they were coupled with highway expansions and renovations – letting more people see the benefits – those measures would have been more popular.
Chris –
Any word yet on what is to be done west of 19th? (With respect to lane widths, sidewalk widths, etc.)
I checked Sam’s blog but didn’t see his press release or a link to new info about the project… do you know of any online sources with specifics?
Thanks,
Bob R.
OK, this link over at PDOT appears to have some of the more recent studies:
http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=43776
– Bob R.
Bob R. That was a great catch. I’m not sure whether the city might consider it, but I think it makes a ton of sense. There might even be some developable land there after the merge was put in, in which case the city could recover some of the expense of buying the land.
On your point on the streetcar, I think I might agree with the others; the public might find the outlay for streetcar more palatable if it’s part of an overall package that deals with car traffic and transit.
For those wondering about where the proposed streetcar might be extended (Down 23rd? Up East Burnside instead of Sandy?), the map on page 16 of this PDF shows possible extensions along 23rd, Sandy, and E. Burnside, so someone involved in the project is at least considering these possibilities.
Anybody know what the projected ridership would be on the Burnside/Sandy Streetcar?
Anybody know what the projected ridership would be on the Burnside/Sandy Streetcar?
From what I’ve read so far (just in the past hour), most of the initial analysis relates to costs & potential development, as well as a few alignment alternatives. I don’t know if they’ve done a full ridership study yet.
However, looking at just the current #20 bus, between W. 23rd and E. 13th or so (which is the initial streetcar proposal area), we can assume that a streetcar would capture a significant portion of that ridership… here’s the weekday boarding stats for that segment:
Eastbound:
W. Burnside & St Clair139
W. Burnside & 21st:90
W. Burnside & 20th:172
W. Burnside & 18th:80
W. Burnside & 15th:43
W. Burnside & 13th:84
Burnside & 10th:211
W. Burnside & 8th:47
W. Burnside & 6th:201
W. Burnside & 4th:206
W. Burnside & 2nd:73
Burnside & Burnside Bridge:63
Burnside & Grand:87
E. Burnside & 8th:51
Total Eastbound: 1,547
Westbound:
Sandy & 12th: 44
E. Burnside & 9th:79
E. Burnside & 6th:44
Burnside & M L King:83
Burnside & Burnside Bridge:49
W. Burnside & 5th:280
W. Burnside & Park:81
Burnside & 10th:79
W. Burnside & 12th:55
W. Burnside & 17th:8
W. Burnside & 19th:27
W. Burnside & 20th:10
W. Burnside & 20th Pl:47
W. Burnside & King:15
W. Burnside & St Clair:21
Total Westbound: 922
Total both directions: 2,469
I’ve left off the last stop or two in each direction (assuming that those are almost exclusively through riders who would not take a streetcar just one stop to the end of the line).
Now, a certain percentage of all those numbers are people who need to go further than the initial streetcar would go, so they would still take a bus instead. However, given the streetcar’s track record of attracting additional riders and development, I think it is fair to say that initial ridership would be in the 2.5K to 3.5K range.
Also, looking at the map, there are some excellent transfer opportunities with MAX. Both with the existing system (just 1.5 blocks away from Red/Blue lines at 19th, and right over the station at the Burnside Bridge/1st), and the transit mall alignment at 5th/6th.
An eastbound rider from Beaverton with a destination along Burnside could likely save some time and some transfers by walking a block or two from 19th and boarding a Burnside streetcar. (Yes, they could board a bus today, but again, rail attracts more riders than bus.)
Disclaimer: Despite the above numbers, that’s just my back-of-the-napkin analysis. I don’t work for PDOT or any agency, and I’ve not seen their official estimates yet.
– Bob R.
PS… Just for comparison’s sake, the #14 bus on Hawthorne has more than double that ridership (close to 6.5K) just between downtown and 47th, and most of that is outside Fareless Square, meaning higher potential operating revenue from fares than would be captured on Burnside.
– Bob R.
Chris, have you been able to get the cost per passenger mile data for the streetcar yet? Or, just the # of riders and their average trip length?
Thanks
JK
A note on combining rail transit projects with road projects… the Banfield (I-84) was widened when Eastside MAX was built, 26 has been and continues to be widened as a part of the Westside MAX project, I-5 in North Portland will be soon widened at the Slough, etc.
And just a quick review on lighrail votes:
1986? TriMet district voters approve $200 property tax for Westside MAX
1994 TriMet district voters approve $400M property tax for Clackmas to Vancouver
1995 Clark county voters reject lightrail funding
1996 Statewide lottery funds for lightrail defeated…it passed in the metro area, losing downstate.
1998 South/North light rail loses by 2000 votes, passing in Portland and Multnomah county; losing in Washington and Clackamas counties.
Time for another election for Milwaukie MAX, the Hayden Island MAX extension and a Barbur Blvd MAX study…every county will get something.
Back to the Burnside Streetcar…I think potential ridership is very high with all the development potential as well as works in progress, interesting destinations, etc. And remember Streetcar is not a high capacity, high speed option. Some kind of modified BRT on Hawthorne would do the most to make Frank, et.al. happy. Give the right lane over to buses, bikes and local traffic only with stops in the lane at curb extensions so articulated buses would not have to pull into stops, etc. This could move some bodies. Only the brave would bike it, but there are more and more of those.
JK – You know it’s bad, just do the simple math. The Streetcar has got to be the most expensive on the list of transit options. So figure the 60-120 mil already spent plus just operations is 400k per year per… something? I forget what all is there, but the numbers are out there.
…I egg you on only because I want to see the numbers too.
As for the Burnside and Sandy route… where the heck did you get those numbers Bob R? I want those numbers dernit. That would have helped me massively in the near past when I had to do some of the research I had to do.
Also, I’ll 2nd what Frank says: Hawthorne needs a streetcar. The fact that Hawthorne doesn’t even have a place in line on this growing list of projects is disconcerting.
As for the order of Streetcar extensions. If we where to do this by actual demand and all… the priority would be to replace the bus lines that are already packed. Such as the 82nd Street bus, the #14, and the number #12 comes after those two by a long shot.
If we’re doing this from a money perspective it’d be cheaper to stick MAX on those routes ala Interstate than putting the Streetcar in (if only we built them at 1/3 the price in country – then they WOULD be valid).
Otherwise I have ot agree with the above notions that Hawthorne should be the next pick. Forget the silly circle and such. Hawthorne area pays MASSIVE taxes into the area, they should get some treatment I would think. It’s very unfair to make some industrial area a priority when neighborhoods would benifit much more.
…as is the case, the Streetcar and its existence isn’t derived from logic though, it’s the same reason people buy Bimmers. Cuz they like that “luxery” they see in them, same for the Streetcar, objective reality be damned.
JK –
I know you are looking for actual numbers, but I think you might be able to get a ballpark figure…
Until very recently, the furthest distance a passenger could travel on the streetcar (that made any sense) would be 2.5 miles. The median distance would likely be much less.
Also, I think it’s safe to assume that the most of the rides are greater than just one or two stops, except for a few initial users and/or tourists, people boarding in error, etc. This is because of the infrequent nature of the streetcar and the short distance between stops, making walking a better choice for very short trips. Thus, aside from a few outliers, the real minimum ride distance is going to be about 1200 feet (3 2-block stop segments).
Assuming the median ride distance is close to 1 mile, the cost per passenger mile is going to be well within an order of magnitude of the cost per boarding, right?
– Bob R.
JK –
A bit more… There are approx 3 million annual boardings on the streetcar, and the pre-Gibbs operations budget was $3.3 million. Thus, if my above assumptions are correct, the cost per passenger mile comes in at a bit over a dollar.
If you take the initial capital costs ($66 million, initial development and Riverplace extension) and assume complete replacement in 30 years (track, overhead wire, vehicles, facilities), that’s another $2.2 million per year. Considered with the above, it would put the cost per passenger mile up around $1.80.
– Bob
Well, this is a great proposal. Not only does it give a shot in the arm to the entire central Burnside corridor, which has been a blight on the central city for decades, but it *finally* opens the door and prepares to lay the groundwork for a NW 23rd Ave streetcar route, as outlined in the plan. Anybody who’s ever spent a significant amount of time on 23rd knows that a streetcar would be a really good solution for that street.
As for Burnside vs. Hawthorne: Burnside has the greater development opportunity, but the bigger question is when the Portland streetcar-building machine will really get into full swing?
When will Portland have the ability to produce streetcars locally, and for the most part manufacture all the other parts of the system here?
Once that ability has been achieved, it would be conceivable (given the proper LID & other financing tools) to simultaneously be constructing Streetcar extensions on Burnside and on Hawthorne. Most people think that the Central Eastside streetcar loop would need to come first (I’m not convinced, but it does seem to be a done deal now).
Finally — streetcar really is about development-oriented transit. Portland was originally built around this premise, and it continues to work to this day. Build the streetcar, zone the surrounding land, and the higher-density development (necessary to maintain the UGB) will follow.
If Streetcar is the tool that allows the UGB to remain in place, without the need to gobble up more farm & forest land for expansion… and if it can be financed by the additional taxes generated by the additional development that it helps to create… then it is worth it. Ridership is built into the buildings developed around the streetcar line, as long as the buildings are occupied and the streetcars are running with frequent service during the 18-hour operations day (with perhaps a future plan to re-start a 24-hour trunkline service).
sam is probably putting the burnside/hollywood streetcar ahead of hawthorne because he’s pissed at the hawthorne businesses for rejecting his parking meter proposal.
The couplet is long overdue and I’m thrilled to see that it may actually happen. I have to agree that streetcar should go up Burnside and possible over to Hawthorne and back down to MLK, not the Sandy route. And as someone mentioned above, the line should be built now, not later. I live in the NW and would love to use it to get to the eastside and can easily think of many others who also would. A line between NW and SE would meet any expectations concerning the number of riders.
Make sure not to miss the embarrasing typo in the Trib on this, wherein the cost of the Streetcar project was misquoted (in the headline, no less) as costing $80 BILLION.
Also, Bob R. – the two buildings you mentioned between 19th & Trinity at Burnside are a Panda Express and the Kiss Car Wash. Given the development across the street, with the Civic Condos and the Harrison HAP project, and the general housing demand in that area that both of those locations are probably under some relocation duress as it is.
The real problem that I see is that it would require a prime block (soon to be on the streetcar line) to be bisected. None of the adjacent properties could hope to absorb any of that extra land; which would be too small to use as much of anything other than open space.
streetcar really is about development-oriented transit. Portland was originally built around this premise…
Portland’s early development-oriented-transit was built primarily by the private sector, especially developers. That was the premise, and it’s not a bad one, and fundamental to infrastructure improvement financing: they who benefit PAY for that benefit.
and if it can be financed by the additional taxes generated by the additional development that it helps to create, then it is worth it.
Worth it to who? Why should YOU get to draw a line around YOUR property and declare that nearly all the taxes you pay should go ONLY to pay for benefits to YOUR property? (And –let’s be honest here– most likely with a subsidy from your neighbors to boot.) Meanwhile those neighbors are ALSO being asked to pay for general government expenses that you’re avoiding by directing YOUR property taxes to benefit your own property?
If we really –REALLY– want to see a build out of Transit-Oriented-Development spurred on by Development-Oriented-Transit…the people who benefit are going to do the heavy lifting for financing this. Number one, that’s fair. But, number two –and more importantly– there are too many Portlanders waiting for paved streets, sidewalks, and better transit…and they need more of a place at the table, both for decision-making, and for doling out whatever transportation dollars are available. My opinion, anyway.
Manzell – point taken about bisecting the prime block between 19th and Trinity Pl.
– Bob R.
“Portland’s early development-oriented-transit was built primarily by the private sector, especially developers. That was the premise, and it’s not a bad one, and fundamental to infrastructure improvement financing: they who benefit PAY for that benefit.”
really? whenever i read about old transit, it looks to me like a graft operation, not a private business. bribe the legislature, get right of ways, sell right of ways, put in train line, sell to state/city in 10 years anyway.
i cant really think of sucessful private transit in portland…
some of the ferries were somewhat sucessful, of course, they operated on the river, which is cheaper than rail…
um, lets see… power utilities built some lines, they went out of business…
yea, what are these private transportation systems that worked and payed the bills?
a streetcar line on west side Burnside is the dumbest idea to come along in quite some time, where are the masses [this is a mass transit system] on either end???? that need transporting??
23rd into the city central makes much more sense..as the 23rd line of old was profitable. Sam, Cram it…
Manzell & Bob R.-
I believe there’s already a great prototype for what to do when transit or a street needs to bisect a block.
I’m talking about the newish (1998) building between 17th, 18th, Morrison & Yamhill. Sure, that’s a larger block, but there’s probably still room for either two smaller flatiron-style buildings on the block remainders — or one flatiron building on the more northern half of the new split block, and a public plaza on the southern half. With perhaps a “Welcome-to-the-Couplet” piece of public art, some benches and a water feature?
So, all I’m saying is that bisecting this block could result in providing new ground-floor homes for retail, as well as housing above, on at least part of the resulting divided property.
A bad day for me to be away from the computer all day :-)
A few thoughts:
– Frank, get an advocacy group going for Streetcar on Hawthorne. Sam has indicated that after the Loop and Lake O it’s all up for grabs in the city-wide rail plan process.
– Bob, the idea is definitely for redevelopment on the parcels between 19th and Trinity Pl. However, the City will need to buy a corner of the car wash to have enough turn lanes to make the couplet return work. Also, west of 19th, the Streetcar will require an 11 ft. outside lane, so we would wind up with a 10 ft. center lane and 11 ft. outside lane (and 9 ft. sidewalks) in alignment with your original compromise. The neighborhood will still be advocating for alternative dimensions in the event that Streetcar doesn’t happen.
– JK, no I’ve never gotten a firm number on average trip length. It’s simply something we don’t measure (we only count boardings). I’ve urged that on a future vehicle we install the same people counters TriMet uses on MAX so we can get data on at least a portion of our runs. I also asked the question when we did the modeling for the east side and got told that the model doesn’t produce that number (which makes no sense to me). I’ll keep asking as many different ways as I can. But meanwhile, Bob’s assumptions on trip length seem pretty reasonable to me.
Garlynn: the newish (1998) building between 17th, 18th, Morrison & Yamhill.
Here is a Satellite Photo of the building Garlynn is talking about.
Chris: so we would wind up with a 10 ft. center lane and 11 ft. outside lane (and 9 ft. sidewalks) in alignment with your original compromise
Nice… Do I get to write my name in the concrete? :-) (Yes, I know that I was not the only person to make a 10ft/11ft proposal)
– Bob R.
Frank, get an advocacy group going for Streetcar on Hawthorne. Sam has indicated that after the Loop and Lake O it’s all up for grabs…
Whoa…”the Loop and Lake O” have ALREADY cut in line. Or was the $40,000 or so spent on upgrading the Hawthorne Bridge years ago for a future street car just so much (expensive) window dressing?
And I don’t think it’s a question of advocacy, it seems more a question of what “the Streetcar” is intended to accomplish. It’s now branded as a “development tool” rather than a transportation mode, and there’s no way existing neighborhoods can muster the “development potential” to warrant such an investment.
Even when we close-in SE folks supported upzoning Division, increasing density, and doing all those cool things that the City and METRO claim to want, we ended up bitch-slapped by METRO’s not supporting MTIP funding for the infrastructure we were promised. Or so we thought. Silly us.
After riding home the absurdly overcrowded #14 tonight, I ended up having to drive my step son to the Pearl…and there’s the shiny streetcar, chugging along toward downtown, hardly crowded at 6:00. Not so much class envy as what the heck are our priorities? If my wife still lived in SW, our high-schooler would be walking to school in the street, denied sidewalks still.
When people talk about the “scuzzier” parts of Burnside, are they talking the hotels that house –and put on the street– some of most disadvantaged citizens? Hey, maybe, finally, we can move ALL the homeless shelters to Buckman. Maybe then, at least, we could get marginally improved bus service for those folks.
The way to blunt resistance and criticism of new efforts like the Burnside couplet, at least as far as financing goes, is to not have the beneficieries “HELP pay for it through a Local Improvement” but to PAY FOR IT. Let us all do our share –I’d strongly support a Hawthorne LID– and let’s get more balance in our transportation expenditures.
As for “early streetcar” systems and the like…sure, lots of sleaze, and granting of right-of-way and too complicated a tale to explain here. (And just how long before THAT was our government appropriating all this land in the first place from the natives already living here?) At any rate I’m not arguing for a privitized transit system. I’m just arguing for all of us paying our fair share. And all of us benefitting. And letting ALL of Portland’s citizens in on the conversation.
It’s now branded as a “development tool” rather than a transportation mode, and there’s no way existing neighborhoods can muster the “development potential” to warrant such an investment.
The folks in Sullivan’s Gulch don’t feel that way. They’ve banded together with their nearby neighborhoods to make the case for an alignment from Lloyd District to Hollywood.
Frank –
If you (or someone else) got a Hawthorne Streetcar advocacy group together, I for one would gladly testify in your favor at any public hearings and submit written proposals, etc. (Every voice helps)
– Bob R.
Frank:
I’ll join your advocacy group for a streetcar line on Hawthorne. There’s no doubt that ridership would justify a line there.
And by the way, isn’t it inaccurate to claim that through the TIF mechanism within a URD or LID nearly all property tax revenue from that district is diverted to pay for improvements within the district? My understanding is that it’s the increases in revenue after formation of the district that are diverted. There’s certainly some logic to that financing mechanism if the improvements spur development and greater property tax revenue.
I’m certainly not against developers paying for a greater share of infrastructure improvements, especially now that certain kinds of formerly risky development have been proven profitable in Portland, but I don’t see public funding mechanisms as inherently unfair.
Hawthorne needs a streetcar. The fact that Hawthorne doesn’t even have a place in line on this growing list of projects is disconcerting.
I’ll second what Chris said in response: get an organized citizens movement together to lobby for a streetcar out Hawthorne. And you’d probably jump up a few places in the queue if you could get the neighborhood behind some local funding strategies: Local Improvement District, paid parking earmarked for streetcar, that sort of thing.
Generally speaking, I wonder how popular the streetcar is outside the immediate riders? Does it have strong support city-wide? Would there be enough votes to pass a City of Portland bond measure to fund multiple lines at once?
For example, ask Portland voters to approve $60 million in City-wide general obligation bonds, which will be used to match funds raised locally by a neighborhood that wants a streetcar. So if Hawthorne raises $20 million through a local improvement district, metered parking, and a neighborhood road fee, the City kicks in $20 million, and then applies for $40 million in federal matching funds. Potentially, a $60 million bond measure could raise $240 million for streetcar construction under those circumstances. Or more if the Legislature was willing to authorize lottery money for matching funds on a per-project basis. How many miles of streetcar track could we build for $480 million?)
Personally, I have never been in favor of the couplet, mainly because it will take Couch Street, a reflectively quiet street, and make it into a thoroughfare, but also because most couplet proposals have called for motor vehicle lane reductions thereby lowering rather than improving motor vehicle capacity. Any such proposals of this type (that lower motor vehicle capacity) should also be followed with a reduction in the gasoline tax.
As for adding the streetcar to the couplet concept, it only makes the whole idea worse, and on both sides of the river. Some people have called West Burnside a barrier that needs fixing. The answer however is not by creating obstacles and more barriers such as streetcars and curb extensions in the street that will block traffic and only create more congestion, possibly to the degree of parking lot status. Slow moving streetcars that stop in travel lanes and take away motor vehicle capacity do NOT belong, and have no place being added to high motor vehicle volume streets like Burnside, Sandy (that with the latest modifications is already becoming a totally messed up thoroughfare), Hawthorne (soon to be messed up), MLK and/or Grand Avenue. Social engineering of this type only increases traffic through neighborhoods on parallel streets. There is no way vehicle capacity can be increased in the Burnside corridor with the streetcar in the mix as the modeling suggests. Any modeling must be manipulated to reflect increased travel times. A far better and more common sense approach, as compared to the current proposal, would be to leave Burnside just as is (the idea of providing socially engineered pedestrian freeway sized sidewalks is totally unnecessary on Burnside) and place the streetcars traveling in both directions on Couch Street where the streetcars would not impede motorists, and motorists would stay on Burnside thereby not impeding the streetcars.
If the streetcar uses the Burnside Bridge for a river crossing, the tracks should be placed in and share a right-of-way with bicycles in the existing bicycle lanes, and not take up space and vehicle capacity in the motor vehicle lanes that have been reduced from six to five when the bicycle lanes were added. Creating even more congestion in the motor vehicle lanes on an already congested bridge that sometimes acts like a parking lot is NOT at all needed.
And then there is the price tag. It seems as if Sam’s office views the public (except for bicyclists, transit riders and the developers of tax abated properties) as an infinite source of money for his list of personal frills, fantasies and social engineering exploitations while not owning up to the need for city-wide increased motor vehicle capacity infrastructure. There must NOT be enough congestion in Portland suit Sam if he wants PDOT to create more of it. If the streetcar was a tool that actually stimulated development, the City Council would NOT be handing out property tax abatements like free candy to developers along streetcar routes. Furthermore, the streetcar system itself needs to become financially self-sustainable, not rely on motor vehicle parking subsidies for operations, and possibly even pay a right-of-way or road maintenance tax. This Burnside-Couch couplet is a total waste of transportation dollars that spent elsewhere, could have a much greater impact for the movement of people and goods than in the Burnside corridor.
Terry,
Having done my fair share of driving on Burnside between 14th and 23rd during rush hour I can say that I’m quite familiar city buses clogging up traffic lanes. I really can’t imagine that streetcars will stop up traffic any worse than the buses currently do, there are more exits on the train I’d expect it would take less time to load and unload passengers.
There are currently 4 lanes on Burnside, which couplet proposals show less than 3 lanes of travel?
I have been for some time pushing for a configuration west of the couplet termination that would have only three lanes: two westbound, one eastbound (the traffic flows are asymetric, with more traffic westbound at all hours of the day). The idea is to free up real estate for either parking or for more sidewalk. Such a design would require that there be pullouts for any bus stops in the eastbound direction.
However, if the Streetcar happens, it will require retaining four lanes.
terry,
speaking of social engineering, wasn’t it russell kirk, father of the conservative movement, who decried cars as “automated Jacobins”? ahh, yes it was, he thought a car was “a mechanical Jacobin, overthrowing dominations and powers, breaking the cake of custom, running over old fangled manners and morals, making the very air difficult to breathe”. i guess yesterdays social engineering is todays society.
frank,
it wasn’t more than a month ago that i saw sam adams on the local news talking about the possibility of streetcar on hawthorne, around the time he posted about new funding mechanisms for rail. i don’t know what has happened since then. hawthorne may not have tons of vacant lots, but there certainly is room for development east of 39th. start the advocacy group, looks like tons of people will join. i’ll bring my neighbors.
hrm… here are the above links in plain text:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n18_v47/ai_17498685
http://www.commissionersam.com/node/1564
Terry –
As West Burnside is _currently_ configured, in most blocks (especially west of Broadway), there is no on-street parking, and absolutely no room for existing buses to pull over. They, like all vehicles in the right lane, are already at the curb.
Thus, any future configuration that includes a streetcar would not block cars any more than we have today. As someone else pointed out, streetcars board/deboard faster than buses. Not to mention the fact that streetcars never unexpectedly cross over into other lanes, and (as I’ve mentioned in many discussions about a streetcar on Hawthorne), the actual streetcar vehicles are narrower than buses, making it easier for vehicles to pass.
Personally, I’m not sold on the idea of a streetcar on Burnside (at least not before Hawthorne), but fears of streetcars degrading traffic conditions on Burnside are unfounded.
Also, the official traffic analysis of all 5 alternatives (including a “do nothing” alternative) show that the couplet proposal results in the best travel times for motorists, due to smooth flowing grid signal timing which is not possible on two-way streets. A time savings of 5 minutes over what we have today was cited.
As a person who visits that area frequently as A) a motorist, B) a pedestrian, and C) a transit user, I am looking forward to:
A) Left turns!
A) More parking!
A) Better traffic flow.
A) Better travel times for N-S travel as well!
B) Shorter crossing distances.
B) Shorter wait times for a “walk” signal
B) Fewer directional conflicts with traffic
B) Plaza areas and easier park block access.
C) Better N-S times for transit, including on the mall.
And that’s just for West Burnside… things will be improved in the East as well with dramatically improved pedestrian access where Burnside and Sandy currently meet, as well as improved travel times for motorists through that area. (Ever try to head westbound on Burnside through 12th at peak hour? It can take multiple cycles of the signal to get through, and the wait time for the signal is perhaps the longest in the city.)
When you add to that the fact that Burnside is due for a complete reconstruction/repaving in the very near future anyway, the incremental costs of these other improvements to complete the couplet system are not so daunting… (I’m excluding the streetcar from this portion of the argument.)
– Bob R.
Terry –
(apologies to everyone for going off on a tangent) – regarding your dislike of what is happening on Sandy, are you at least in favor of the signalization improvements?
For example, we will now have a much needed left-turn movement onto 47th. I frequently use 47th to get between the Post Office and Halsey, but turning left from eastbound Sandy onto northbound 47th has often been a problem.
Further, at the west end of Glisan, there will now be a light where Glisan meets Sandy. Turning left form Glisan onto westbound Sandy has always been daunting.
By making it easier to travel inbound on Glisan, it may take some pressure off the Halsey/39th/Sandy transition mess.
Also, I understand a study is underway for the intersection of 57th/Sandy, though not a part of the current project, to allow for protected left turn movements from both directions of Sandy onto 57th.
– Bob R.
PS… In another thread you mentioned there was past precedent in Portland for the bicycle tax you would like to levy… I asked you for a reference to that but you didn’t reply.
I think the pdx Streetcar will be a great addition to the new Burnside couplet.
I don’t think there are really any downsides… We get better travel time, parking and access for motorists… and pedestrians, businesses and transit riders all benefit as well.
Terry, I don’t think you have any valid arguments *against* the couplet/streetcar addition.
I agree, however, that Hawthorne Blvd deserves strong consideration for a Streetcar line.
Frank argues that we should use Streetcar as a *transportation* tool as well as a development tool. I agree… And isn’t that what the LO Streetcar line is doing anyway?!
In Milan, for example, there are many Streetcar lines, some of which function as circulators, and some of which function as low-volume Metro rail. Some lines even have their own ROW in the middle of the road, and they work efficiently at moving people. Just from eyeballing it, I think more people ride Streetcars in Milan than ride the Metro (which is very good as well).
I’d like to see Streetcars going to Hawthorne that function as transportation tools. Imagine dedicated public-vehicle ROW on Hawthorne where the Streetcar could cruise from Downtown to 39th in 6 or 7 minutes. Buses could also use the lanes….
The important thing, I think, is that we should consider using the Streetcar as a transportation tool in the future.
Well, I do appreciate the support given for improving the transit situation for us close-in SE’ers, and maybe the idea of an “advocacy” group has merit. But when I’ve heard there’s room in Tri-Met’s operating budget for only one new transit project over the next decade…where’s the money to come from? I mean, seriously?
And by the way, isn’t it inaccurate to claim that through the TIF mechanism within a URD or LID nearly all property tax revenue from that district is diverted to pay for improvements within the district? My understanding is that it’s the increases in revenue after formation of the district that are diverted…
C’mon…the massive increase in “value” created in South Waterfront will be taxed to (hopefully)pay off the urban renewal bonds. To which OHSU will contribute…what? They’re property tax exempt. And what’s the assessed values without further development? My 5,000 sq ft lot and 1925 house is currently assessed more than Zidell’s 38 acres in South Waterfront.
The soup kitchens and crisis centers in old town were assessed far more than any of Homer Williams’ condos in the Pearl for the Streetcar, which wasn’t hard because his condos were assessed nothing. Not to mention the property tax breaks for “historic renovations.”
We need a more wholistic and systemic look at what resources we have overall, as a City, and where we’re spending those resources. It’s fine to advocate for each individual neighborhood –and I certainly intend to advocate for mine– but we really need that broader look to understand the opportunity costs of how we’re proceeding overall.
There’s certainly some logic to that financing mechanism if the improvements spur development and greater property tax revenue.
I’m certainly not against developers paying for a greater share of infrastructure improvements, especially now that certain kinds of formerly risky development have been proven profitable in Portland, but I don’t see public funding mechanisms as inherently unfair.
It’s fine to advocate for each individual neighborhood –and I certainly intend to advocate for mine– but we really need that broader look to understand the opportunity costs of how we’re proceeding overall.
I certainly hope (and as chair of the Streetcar CAC, will work to ensure) that the city-wide rail plan process that is starting gives a broader look.
What’s interesting to me about Burnside is that no neighborhood or advocacy group pushed for Streetcar (lots pushed for the couplet). The Streetcar component was completely initiated by Sam.
(Sorry about my last post’s failure to cut –after pasting– those last two paragraphs that weren’t mine. Something about posting at 3:15 am I suspect…)
If there was no advocacy group for the Burnside Streetcar, Chris…where did this come from? Commissioner Adams certainly appreciates the intense competition for Tri-Met operating revenues…why throw this in the mix, right now? As Streetcar advocate extraordinaire, can you shed more light on how this fits in? It’s never come up on the Burnside Bridgehead CAC that I serve on…
I have just sent an email to Commissioner Sam’s office regarding the proposal for 10ft/11ft lanes between 19th and 23rd.
In October, 2005 I promoted my idea for how to configure such lanes to maximize sidewalk space where needed without further narrowing auto lanes by implementing a slightly meandering right-of-way.
I thought now would be a good time to remind Mr. Adams’ team of this proposal, especially now that a streetcar is being considered, as it allows for wider transit boarding platforms.
The details of this proposal can be found here:
http://www.bobrichardson.com/burnside_compromise.html
– Bob R.
Ive been out of town for a few days so maybe I missed this, but how does this Burnside Streetcar proposal fit into the Eastside loop proposal? What are the city’s priorities regarding Burnside, Eastside, LO, and SE Light Rail? I appreciate the enthusiasm but I wonder how we will pay to operate all of these lines.
If there was no advocacy group for the Burnside Streetcar, Chris…where did this come from? Commissioner Adams certainly appreciates the intense competition for Tri-Met operating revenues…why throw this in the mix, right now? As Streetcar advocate extraordinaire, can you shed more light on how this fits in? It’s never come up on the Burnside Bridgehead CAC that I serve on…
Well… I could just say Sam is a visionary :-)
Not to detract from Sam’s vision, but he’s also a very good politician. I suspect that there were key stakeholders (read property owners) who were skeptical about the couplet, but enthusastic when the Streetcar was added to the mix.
But I still think it came from Sam.
Ive been out of town for a few days so maybe I missed this, but how does this Burnside Streetcar proposal fit into the Eastside loop proposal? What are the city’s priorities regarding Burnside, Eastside, LO, and SE Light Rail? I appreciate the enthusiasm but I wonder how we will pay to operate all of these lines.
Brian, Sam has been very clear that this is AFTER the Loop and Lake O in priority, and will be part of the City-wide rail plan process (which in turn is to be connected to a regional rail plan).
Brian, Sam has been very clear that this is AFTER the Loop and Lake O in priority, and will be part of the City-wide rail plan process (which in turn is to be connected to a regional rail plan).
Does this mean the couplet construction would occur after the Loop, or that the streetcar would get put in after Loop? Wouldn’t it be more cost effective to put in rail at the same time they’re doing all of the other road construction? If it would end up significantly cutting down on construction costs I’d be all for this projecting doing some queue jumping.
The pre-engineering estimate is that it would save a few million $$$ to do the rails at the same time as the street.
But there’s no schedule (or funding plan) for the couplet yet either, so it’s way to early to sweat this.
The key is to get preliminary engineering going on both to get real cost estimates.
I thought I read (maybe in the Oregonian or the Trib that building the streetcar at the same time as the couplet could save around $10 million. I’d say $10 million in savings might be worth pushing the project forward.
Also, wouldn’t a Burnside crossing make it possible to build a “short” eastside loop as a starter project? Say, Broadway to Burnside, with the “loop” crossing both bridges?
djk –
According to page one of this document, the cost savings for combining the projects would be $1.25 to $1.5 million.
– Bob R.
This plan rocks! It improves transit times for both motorists and public transportation, tears down the noisy and unsafe barrier between north and south, creates more public transit opportunities and more parking, and unites the east and west sides. What’s not to like?
Both the idea of extending the streetcar along NW 23rd Ave, and/or along Sandy or East Burnside, should be explored, but not if it means delaying this project. As currently configured Burnside is a disaster for motorists and pedestrians alike (not to mention anyone visiting from out of town who is trying to cross Burnside either by foot or by car).
Burnside is broken (and decrepit). It needs to be fixed. This plan is elegant and visionary.
Thank goodness in Portland we have an elected official who really is a “uniter” and not a “divider.”
Also, wouldn’t a Burnside crossing make it possible to build a “short” eastside loop as a starter project? Say, Broadway to Burnside, with the “loop” crossing both bridges?
We’ve already generated a concensus around the “Locally Preferred Alternative” to go over the Broadway Bridge. Changing that plan would slow us down, not speed us up. Bypassing the Lloyd District would also skip the potential for a lot of Transit-Oriented Development.
So, I’ve been trying to puzzle over a signal-timing issue in my head, and I just can’t quite get it straight. Can somebody help me out with this?
In Portland (as in any well-managed one-way street grid) the signals are timed so that you get greens when traveling at a steady speed in one direction on one street with no congestion. The red lights that any motorist experiences just represent the green lights for traffic that is experiencing this wave in a perpendicular direction.
When Burnside and Couch are made into a one-way couplet, traffic will need to exit the Burnside bridge heading westbound at NW 2nd Avenue. Eastbound Burnside traffic will be riding a one-way wave of greens from NW 19th Ave to SW 2nd Ave, at which point they will proceed onto the bridge without stopping.
Northbound Second Ave traffic will proceed through the intersection without stopping, riding a wave of greens from SW Market St.
However, Westbound Burnside traffic will need to make a right turn movement onto Second, then an immediate left turn onto Couch.
How will that movement’s signal cycles fit into the overall pattern? If they get right turns while Burnside gets greens, then when they hit Couch, they will encounter a red light due to the signal cycle for east/west Couch traffic. This will cause congestion. Giving them a constant green at this intersection would necessitate removing pedestrian movements on the west side north/south crosswalk. I don’t think anybody wants to see this — but short of doing this, how does the situation get resolved to not toss a red light into the mix and back up traffic onto the bridge?
Can anybody help me think through this scenario?
thanks,
~Garlynn
Anyone notice how frequently Front Ave is intersected in the existng or proposed streetcar lines?
I would make Front Ave a major route for Streetcar—extending it southward on Barbur Bv. to Tigard. And Northward across the Willamette close to the U of P and on to Vancouver via a bridge that would be better than the CRC proposal. The reconstruction of Front Ave. could have included a simpler version of the Transit Mall–but I guess it still could. This will saves us the cool billion that running a MAX to Tigard would cost.
DJK Said: Also, wouldn’t a Burnside crossing make it possible to build a “short” eastside loop as a starter project? Say, Broadway to Burnside, with the “loop” crossing both bridges?
Chris replied: We’ve already generated a concensus around the “Locally Preferred Alternative” to go over the Broadway Bridge.
Chris –
I think what DJK was suggesting was a loop that went over the Broadway bridge, served the Lloyd district as planned, and returned to downtown via the Burnside Bridge, rather than heading further south. I don’t think he was suggesting eliminating the Broadway crossing.
However, at this point I’d prefer that the new east-side loop return via the Hawthorne Bridge, as it would work toward creating a future Hawthorne Streetcar line.
– Bob R.
Ron-
The problem with putting transit on Front Avenue is that you lose half your potential normal ridership due to the park and the river. No development on one half of the tracks. It’s generally considered a much better deal to put transit in an area where development can be put on both sides of the tracks, to double the amount of potential riders (special events aside).
In San Francisco, there is a trolley (the F-line) along the waterfront, but the water side of the tracks contains the Ferry Building, all the Port buildings (the wharfs and piers), as well as Fisherman’s Wharf, Pier 39, etc.
So, that’s a pretty big hurdle to overcome in terms of meeting ridership needs.
Garlynn –
Regarding signal lights for 2nd/Couch and 2nd/Burnside, I have not seen any specifics.
However, I imagine that the timing for these two lights will prove to be an exception to the normal grid flow, and that the light at Couch will be timed almost exclusively to allow northbound 2nd travel and left turns onto Couch. To accomplish this, that specific intersection will need sensor loops and “push button for walk signal” buttons for pedestrians.
I’m not saying for certain that this is how it will happen, but that seems like an obvious approach to me.
Looking at those two intersections in isolation, what this means is that the intersection at 2nd/Burnside will be made much better for pedestrians (due to shorter crossing distances and fewer cars on the west side of the intersection), and the intersection at Couch will become moderately worse for pedestrians (no increased crossing distance, but increased traffic and increased wait times to cross.) Overall it is a wash or a net gain.
Take a look at this document from 2005… takes awhile to download… there are a number of drawings on various pages that show how the lanes can/will be configured, but no real discussion of signal timing.
– Bob R.
In the stakeholder committee we spent a lot of time on the design of that intersection to make it the best possible pedestrian experience due to the volume of traffic that has to get through there. We did not get into the details of signal timing.
But I don’t think it’s a horrible idea to use the bridge to queue the traffic waiting to enter the synchronized part of the system.
“The problem with putting transit on Front Avenue is that you lose half your potential normal ridership due to the park and the river”
I suppose jogging it closer to downtown, in that area, might help. My point is that, this corridor, if you include Barbur, is a very lengthy route and that the north end of it will see continued high density development. But I think the MAX would be overkill, unlesss someone could cut the cost to a third of what it is. Further, do Barbur Bv. and the surrounding hillside neighborhoods want the blight of a MAX train?
Ron –
Some of us do not consider MAX to be “blight”… in fact, MAX has done quite a lot to improve the urban form of Interstate Ave., as an example, in my opinion.
Light rail can take any number of forms, from purely urban street running (MAX downtown, no curbs or barriers between tracks and autos, or MAX at Skidmore Fountain, running on a grade with no change between street and sidewalks), or median-style street running (Interstate Ave.), or purely freeway-adjacent dedicated ROW (I-84, Sunset Hwy.)
It may very well be the case that future studies show that a streetcar is all that is needed to handle transit capacity requirements along Barbur, but to contrast streetcar and MAX with the term “blight” draws too harsh a distinction, in my view.
– Bob R.
Yes, it looks like Sammy boy IS a good politician:
he proposed a streetcar addition to the Burnside-
Couch couplet, throwing a bone to the railfans to
get them on board, and it looks like most of them
are falling for it hook, line and sinker.
Dear Nick –
I was for this project long before rail was considered a component. I have stated multiple times in this discussion that I am not sold on the idea of streetcar for Burnside, at least not in the immediate future.
Chris was for this project as well, as were a number of others, and Frank is opposed to the streetcar component (and perhaps the whole proposal?) so your characterization of “most” railfans falling for it “hook, line, and sinker” is way off the mark.
– Bob R.
Nick, I was for the Burnside/Couch couplet project long before it was proposed, and also wanted to see a Burnside/Couch streetcar line from W 11th to E 14th long before Sam proposed it.
Of course, I’m going to support Sam Adams for suggesting two projects I’ve wanted to see for years.
I think what DJK was suggesting was a loop that went over the Broadway bridge, served the Lloyd district as planned, and returned to downtown via the Burnside Bridge, rather than heading further south. I don’t think he was suggesting eliminating the Broadway crossing.
That’s what I meant to say. I see Broadway/Lloyd District/Burnside as a potentially useful Phase I, with (perhaps) Burnside to Hawthorne and out the Hawthorne/Madison couplet to 12th Avenue as Phase II. And Hawthorne to OMSI as phase III.
Of course, if it’s feasible to pay for and build the entire eastside line at once, we should do it.
cost savings for combining the projects would be $1.25 to $1.5 million.
Okay, that’s nowhere near as significant as the savings I apparently misremembered reading.
OK, now I’ve got a different question, after looking at the document that Chris posted a link to:
For the “plaza” section of Burnside from Park to 2nd, why put the bike lane right next to the traffic lanes on the south side of the road? Why not build an Amsterdam/Copenhagen-style bike path on the north side of the road, since there will be plenty of room for it? This could connect up to the island in the middle of the 2nd/Burnside intersection, allowing bicyclists to transition from the bridge to the path at that point. It would also provide a great first Portland demonstration project for this type of path!!!
For the “plaza” section of Burnside from Park to 2nd, why put the bike lane right next to the traffic lanes on the south side of the road?
Did you mean the document that I posted?
I’m sure that details such as bike lane placement and block-by-block exceptions are still open to discussion… you might want to draw something up and submit a written suggestion.
It should be noted that a bike lane does not appear at all on Burnside in this area of the project except between 4th and the bridge.
I think it is mainly intended as a way for bikes coming North on 4th, 3rd, and 2nd to turn east onto the bridge.
The intention of the project regarding bikes is to put most bike traffic on Flanders, which would be reconfigured as a “bike boulevard”, including some kind of crossing of I-405. Bikes would mainly only be on Burnside for the purpose of crossing the bridge.
– Bob R.
Doug Posted: “Having done my fair share of driving on Burnside between 14th and 23rd during rush hour I can say that I’m quite familiar city buses clogging up traffic lanes. I really can’t imagine that streetcars will stop up traffic any worse than the buses currently do, there are more exits on the train I’d expect it would take less time to load and unload passengers.”
Response: About five years ago, and for about two years, I commuted via Burnside westbound in the morning rush and eastbound in the evenings. Busses stopping in travel lanes were definitely an issue/problem that created undue congestion, especially in the evenings with the bus that came from NW 23rd, more so when the left lane was also blocked by a vehicle waiting for an opening from uphill traffic to make a left turn. The difference between busses and streetcars is that the streetcars will be moving at a slower pace between stops than the busses do now, and thereby creating even more congestion. Personally I think it should be illegal for busses and/or streetcars to stop for passengers in travel lanes and block other traffic. The fact is it is hypocritical for anybody to support such a concept and also support fuel conservation when the congestion created by transit vehicles blocking other traffic increases the overall fuel consumption of other motor vehicles using the same street.
Don also Posted: “There are currently 4 lanes on Burnside, which couplet proposals show less than 3 lanes of travel?”
Response: From the Park Blocks East, and across the Burnside Bridge, busses usually utilized a third right hand which may go away under the Adams proposal. Crossing the bridge, the right hand lane was faster than the other two eastbound lanes due to most vehicles using that lane were making right turns onto MLK. One jerk head self-serving bus driver on a regular basis would use the right lane until he got to MLK, and then merge/straddle into the center lane only to nose into the stop at Grand totally blocking two lanes of traffic. Often the left lane was also at a dead stop due to vehicles waiting to make left turns one block East of Grand. A three lane parking lot scenario was created, engines idling, with busses only agitating the situation. I personally turned in the bus number several times to Tri-Met, but I don’t think they did anything. This arrogance, whereby Tri-Met thinks they own the public roads over which they travel and feel they have priority over all the other stakeholders that pay taxes to drive their vehicles on the road is the reason I have lost any respect for the transit agency, and why I now call busses the bullies of the road and no longer ride them. One of the problems with the current planning process is that people that drive or commute on streets like Burnside on a regular basis, pay transportation taxes, but do not live in the neighborhood, have no representation in the citizen advisory process, within Sam’s office, or with PDOT.
To respond to Bob R:
I view the couplet in the following manner:
A) Left turns – More drivers waiting for pedestrians in crosswalks thereby disrupting East-West traffic flow.
A) More parking – On a thoroughfare such as Burnside, parking will only hinder and disrupt traffic flow.
A) Better traffic flow – The only two-way street that goes all the way from Gresham to the West Hills is now being chopped up. Separating the traffic onto two streets only makes the distance traveled longer.
A) Better travel times for N-S travel as well – Adding traffic signals at Couch Street will only impede N-S traffic flow.
B) Shorter crossing distances – Pedestrians waiting and standing closer to moving traffic on curb extensions creating a safety hazard. Truck movements are hindered. Trucks must drive over the sidewalks to make turns.
B) Shorter wait times for a “walk” signal – More people and bicyclists darting out in front of cars and trucks, possibly getting hit or run over. More crashes due to drivers slamming on the brakes.
B) Fewer directional conflicts with traffic – More conflicts with pedestrians, particularly on Couch Street. Increased traffic on Couch Street has an negative impact to pedestrians.
B) Plaza areas and easier park block access – Less pedestrian access for the properties in the center of the couplet. Couch Street less pedestrian friendly.
C) Better N-S times for transit, including on the mall. – N-S travel times disrupted by additional signals on Couch Street. Travel times on the mall, slowed down with the addition of light rail, also must adhere to new traffic signals on Couch Street.
Referring to Sandy Bv, Bob R asked: “are you at least in favor of the signalization improvements?”
Response. Yes and No. I agree the signal at Glisan Street is needed. Adding left turn lanes are fine but the bus stops at those intersections need to be moved a block in either direction so bus zones can be created and busses stopping for passengers do not block traffic flow. What is a TOTAL waste of transportation dollars are the curb extensions, especially ones like in front of the Salvation Army Building and in front of the Buick dealership used car lot, and existing ones like in front of Trader Joe’s and the Post Office. It is extremely obvious PDOT has more money than they know what to do with.
Bob R also Posted: “In another thread you mentioned there was past precedent in Portland for the bicycle tax you would like to levy… I asked you for a reference to that but you didn’t reply.”
I apologize. I may not have returned to that thread. In around 1900, Portland had a bicycle tax, in part to paving strips on streets for bicyclists to use. Bicyclists were given some sort of badge to place on their bicycles to demonstrate they had paid the tax. Bicycles on the streets without the badge were confiscated by authorities. I have more information, but unfortunately I have misfiled it somewhere.
Usong Couch street as a couplet is nothing new, for years I rode the Glisan Bus [Portland Traction Company] into town and it turned off burnside to Couch and then proceeded to fifth, a much easier route than attempting to turn left off Burnside…
The idea of a combined streetcar and bicycle lane is actually quite insane – particularly considering how vulnerable bicycles are to slipping in the grooves for the tracks and causing the riders to fall over and crash. That idea would likely cause quite a few deaths before it would have to change. I have personally seen at least one Portland bike cop fall over because his tire got stuck in the groove.
At least not all condo projects in Portland are being extempted their property taxes. Long being a disbeliever, I finally checked portlandmaps.com and you are RIGHT! However, see below:
http://portlandmaps.com/detail.cfm?action=Assessor&propertyid=R246543&state_id=1S1E04AD%20%204700&address_id=645087&intersection_id=&dynamic_point=0&x=7641876.845&y=681325.21&place=1504%20SW%2011TH%20AVE&city=PORTLAND&neighborhood=DOWNTOWN&seg_id=139586
(this is the tax info for the Benson tower)
But yea, the entire Pearl district and SOWA are tax-free. =O
Frank is opposed to the streetcar component (and perhaps the whole proposal?)…
Not opposed, really, to either the Streetcar or “fixing” Burnside. Just concerned with the high capital costs, the high operating costs, and how these things get paid for.
I support mass transit, and feel it’s legitimate to subsidize it for the “greater good.” But when we start subsidizing “mass transit” for its role as a development tool rather than as a transportation tool, that’s where we start losing our focus. And I start balking at the price tags, and challenging the definition of what now constitutes “public good.”
In my own personal little world, I have to make decisions every day on priorities. I can’t just say “that’s neat” and buy whatever I want. Yeah, “fixing” Burnside’s a great idea, but what are the opportunity costs? I’d love to see streetcars on every arterial…but if the cost is a mounting backlog of unrepaired city streets, unpaved local streets, and thousands of school kids with no sidewalks to walk to school, I’d at least like a discussion of where our priorities lie.
The streetlight is out on my corner, has been for awhile. I called it in yesterday and was told it would take “a couple of weeks” to change the bulb. I don’t know if that’s reasonable or not, but that’s several weeks to change a lightbulb, so I have to say it doesn’t seem reasonable. A small thing, but that’s the level at which most of us interact with our government. The pothole that only get wider and deeper. Or –on the positive side– the city crews, working incredibly hard and fast last Sunday sweeping leaves off our street.
A part of me loves the streetcar, truly. And, yeah, I think we have some true visionaries in government. But I also think we need to be fairer about who’s paying for what, and whose priorities are being met…and whose aren’t. That Homer Williams’ condos in the Pearl were zero-assessed for the the streetcar that serves them not only makes no sense, and is unfair, but it means we hurt our ability to fund future streetcar and mass transit improvements, especially in our existing neighborhoods. In the end, there’s a limit, not to our imaginations, but to what we can afford. There’s new parks –and new streetcar lines– in the Pearl and South Waterfront…in the meantime my 100 yeard old neighborhood is still waiting for its community center. Or even a safe route down to the river. And I’ve nearly twenty years, now, riding an overcrowded bus line, and my kids are now grown and gone from the neighborhood. Soon my step-kids will be gone. And, still, we wait…
Frank, I share much of your perspective and try to frame these policy questions from the standpoint of “What if I had to pay for these things myself?”
It makes me look much harder at the potential of solving two or three problems via one project–rather than one at a time.
Bob R. and DJK:
Please note that I said MOST, not all, railfans
supported the project before the streetcar
proposal. Do you see how Sam proposed the streetcar to be built AFTER the couplet project is done. Yeah, sure. You get the gist.
BTW, I’m glad it’s going all the way to 19th Ave.
For once the special interests did not get their
way.
I think it would be a good idea to bring the
naysayers of the couplet project along for a
leisurely walk the length of West Burnside to see
what we pedestrians have to contend with.
Nick most recently wrote: “Please note that I said MOST, not all, railfans supported the project before the streetcar proposal.”
Actually, Nick, it appears that you wrote the opposite in your original comment, thus the confusion amongst us readers:
…”he proposed a streetcar addition to the Burnside-Couch couplet, throwing a bone to the railfans to get them on board, and it looks like most of them are falling for it hook, line and sinker.”
No worries…
– Bob R.
FYI, the Catholic Sentinel published an article on the couplet this morning which gives the perspective of several members of the archdiocese:
http://www.sentinel.org/articles/2006-49/15126.html
Bob R. and others:
I was speculating that Sam dangled the streetcar
so that the rail-lovers in Portland (of which
there seem to be an abundance, in and out of
government) would REALLY push hard for his couplet
project, even if they favored it beforehand–and after it’s finished??? Let’s see if the streetcar
ever gets built on Burnside.
I happen to like Sam, but you know the old saw
about politicians’ promises…
Regards, Nick
P.S. I really liked Bob’s 10/11 ft. idea–it seems
to be a good cost effective compromise, without
spending a fortune on construction. How about an
advocacy group for THAT?
switch, please learn to use portlandmaps.com.
all completed condo buildings appear to be “tax free” when viewed as a lot/parcel. this is true in and out of the pearl/sowa. here is the Belmont Lofts, a building in SE Portland:
whole bldg: http://portlandmaps.com/detail.cfm?action=Assessor&propertyid=R560569&state_id=1S1E01AB%20%2090000&address_id=942656&intersection_id=&dynamic_point=0&x=7656570.469&y=681472.667&place=915%20SE%2035TH%20AVE&city=PORTLAND&neighborhood=SUNNYSIDE&seg_id=116327
indiv. unit: http://portlandmaps.com/detail.cfm?action=assessor&propertyid=R560576
by selecting a unit in the drop-down menu above, you can see that the building is assessed and does in fact pay taxes. in the pearl, the henry is a good example:
whole bldg: http://portlandmaps.com/detail.cfm?action=Assessor&propertyid=R552466&state_id=1N1E34CB%20%2040000&address_id=&intersection_id=&dynamic_point=0&x=7642989.469&y=684691.667&place=NO%20ADDRESS%20AVAILABLE&city=PORTLAND&neighborhood=PEARL&seg_id=0
indiv. unit: http://portlandmaps.com/detail.cfm?action=assessor&propertyid=R552479
the only reason the benson shows up as a solitary tax lot is that it wasn’t legally divided in the years listed. for most of those years the lot was paying taxes, it was a house.
portlandmaps is a treasure, but only if you use it right. similarly, while this chain of comments has been really informative and provided some great links to sources, cases like this can result in people feeling very sure about a fallacy, which make me wonder if we’re even making any progress…
p-maps:
thanks for helping me, man! I thought it was a bit odd that all the new condo buildlings in P-town were tax-free. And here I thought I was a m-maps l33tness. Guess I had to get schooled… =P
Thanks for the info!
whoops, thought i was on bog’s blog until I read that graceful and appreciative acknowledgement. guess people are civil to one another here… sorry for the snarky tone of my posting, won’t happen again.
On that issue of property taxes, though…
You’ll note in the Henry, Commerical Condo Unit C1, Real Market Value $1.7 million…assessed value $974 thousand.
Unit 1515…sales prices $939,474. Real Market Value $1 million…but assessed at $601,650.
Or…near and dear to Public Transport’s heart: Parking Space P2-9. Real Market Value $25,710…assessed at $12,980, less than half its market value.
Anyone want to explain what public goal is achieved by assessing new, high-end condos –and their parking spaces– at close to half, or less, of their market value?
Frank,
Do you know what the mechanism behind those assessments are (I don’t)? Is it some kind of abatement or is it just measures 5/47/50 at work?
The assessment methodology has something to do with studying goat entrails in the moonlight.
Sure…it’s the wonderful ballot measures at work, in part, but I look at County property appraisals all the time, and if there’s a method to the madness, I can’t discern it. The allowable max increase of 3% continues to throw the system further out of whack, as properties have skyrocketed in value, but what’s the formula that assesses a spankin’ brand new parking space so obviously below its market value? You got me!
Kooky ballot measures have an impact, but this is a pretty common property tax assessment method around the country. I’m not sure why and specifically where it is/isn’t an issue, but it is not limited to the Pearl. This house below in NE is also assessed around 50% of its market value, and well below its most recent sale value.
http://portlandmaps.com/detail.cfm?action=Assessor&propertyid=R170277&state_id=1N1E25BC%20%201000&address_id=604954&intersection_id=&dynamic_point=0&x=7654731.586&y=691679.029&place=2924%20NE%2028TH%20AVE&city=PORTLAND&neighborhood=ALAMEDA&seg_id=110199
One issue: is Couch Street wide enough for two lanes of traffic and a separated streetcar line? And parking on both sides? And nice wide sidewalks. Couch has 60 feet of right of way, and two current lanes of traffic. While Burnside west of the Park Blocks also has only 60 feet, to the east it widens to 100 feet of right of way.
And, a streetcar line that isn’t on its own separated right of way will be worthless, in my opinion. You might as well have buses. Whereas a combination exclusive streetcar/bus lane would work.
http://www.urbanplanningoverlord.blogspot.com/