107 responses to “Who Says MAX Doesn’t Drive Development”
Oddly enough, I’m going to play contrarian here and take issue with a quote from the article:
Promoters say it will make the stretch a desirable place to live, work and eat.
The stretch is _already_ a desirable place to live, work and eat. In part, due to MAX and the streetscape improvements that came with it, but also in part due to the long-time efforts of businesses and neighborhood groups.
I think it is better to say that this represents the kind of development that comes along once an area is recognized as being a desirable place to live, work and eat. It can even be something which improves such an environment. But for promoters to claim that their development is going to bring these qualities to the area is way overstating the case.
JK: I’ll rise to the challenge and say MAX Doesn’t Drive Development! And I’ll keep saying it as long as they ALSO have to give property tax abatements, low interest loans and sweet land deals to get that sort of junk built. See DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/LightRailDevelopment.htm
Why would anyone pay “ $199,000 to $360,000″ to buy a tacky little condo, when in a free market city, that would be more than enough, to buy an average house on a real piece of land. (Average home price in Houston: $155.800; Portland: $299.700 – See realtor.org/Research.nsf/files/MSAPRICESF.pdf/$FILE/MSAPRICESF.pdf
(Of course the speculators might get sucked in for one final blow off in condo speculation.)
BTW, with Interstate ave already congested, I-5 a parking lot and the MAX near capacity (and dreaming of shipping thousands of Vancouverites through the area), how are all the new people going to get around? (I have heard suggestions that Trimet may reduce or eliminate service along Interstate to accommodate the Vancouverites – so much for Trimet’s BS about rail being permeant, unlike bus.)
Wow. Think about that for a minute, the afternoon rush hour in North Portland has 5 trains an hour, with [about] 7 cars per hour. Each car carries 166 people, for a total 1162 people/hour, in one direction, or more than half a freeway lane…
Remember, you read it here: Jim K says that MAX carries half a freeway lane in N Portland, just a few years after it opened, even before it went to Vancouver…
(And that is with mostly single car trains at 12 minute headways, The system is actually designed for two car trains at 5 minute headways, (with a partial power outage…)
Why would anyone pay “$199,000 to $360,000” to buy a tacky little condo…
Because I don’t want to pay that kind of money to live in a house with a yard that I will not use or want to maintain (thus I would have to pay somebody to maintain it for me) and also be forced to own and maintain a car to conduct my daily activities.
Jim, when are you going to realize that not everybody shares your concept of the ideal lifestyle?
It’s interesting that JK and others tend to zero in on Houston when trying to claim that sanity in land use produces high housing prices. Yes, you can get a cheap house in Houston, and you also have a miserable quality of life with long commutes, traffic, crime, high property taxes, unsafe drivers, hurricanes, and heat.
JK and his compatriots don’t mention other cities like Seattle, L.A., the Bay Area, San Diego, Sacramento, D.C., suburban New York City, Miami, etc.–where sprawl has historically been unregulated and home prices are much higher than in Portland.
And they don’t mention cities like Las Vegas, Phoenix, Orlando, and Denver–where sprawl has been unregulated and home prices are close to Portland’s.
This is one reason why the Debunking Cato article rings much truer than Cato’s Debunking Portland site. The latter focuses on a few anecdotal situations, while the Debunking Cato takes a broader view and is honest about the benefits AND the drawbacks of Portland’s system.
Portland’s median home price is 20% above the national average and 20% below the average for the western states. It is by far the most affordable major city on the West Coast.
Clearly, people are willing to pay that much for a condo in Portland or the prices would be lower, and they’re willing to pay those prices because they’d rather live here than in Houston. Prices wouldn’t be as high as they are if we hadn’t experienced a huge in-migration over the last decade.
And what’s up with this: (I have heard suggestions that Trimet may reduce or eliminate service along Interstate to accommodate the Vancouverites – so much for Trimet’s BS about rail being permeant, unlike bus.)
That sounds a lot like “I have here in my hand a list of . . . ” Pfui. Pigs will fly before TriMet does anything of the kind.
“I have heard suggestions that Trimet may reduce or eliminate service along Interstate to accommodate the Vancouverites – so much for Trimet’s BS about rail being permeant, unlike bus.”
Given that there are homes in good condition in the area which have more square feet and sell for a bit less than the condos, and given that the condos have HOA fees, etc., the fact that people are still interested in buying condos must imply that there is a _market_ for said condos.
(Of course, here as nationwide, the entire real estate market is softening and condos are usually the first to cool down in a real estate slump, so I hope for the developers’ sake that this property hasn’t come onto the market at precisely the wrong time.)
I have heard suggestions that Trimet may reduce or eliminate service along Interstate to accommodate the Vancouverites
Heard from who? And for what reason?
They are still running single-car trains much of the time on Interstate, and at 10-minute headways during morning peak. I don’t have the actual number of single-car vs. 2-car trains, but suppose that 1/3 of the trains currently are single-car. Just by moving to 2-car trains they can serve 300-400 additional incoming Vancouver riders in that hour without juggling the schedule. Going to 6-minute headways (adding 4 2-car trains per hour), gives them a capacity of 1200-1600 on those 4 trains.
So TriMet could easily serve 1500-2000 inbound Vancouver riders at peak hour WITHOUT affecting the capacity for existing Interstate-Ave. users.
(And that’s without taking into account that there is still some room in the current cars on the current schedule for additional riders.)
I have heard suggestions that Trimet may reduce or eliminate service along Interstate to accommodate the Vancouverites
If light rail extends to Vancouver, it is not unlikely it will be a lot tougher for folks in North Portland to get a seat since seats are first come first serve. But that isn’t reducing service.
If light rail extends to Vancouver, it is not unlikely it will be a lot tougher for folks in North Portland to get a seat since seats are first come first serve. But that isn’t reducing service.
I had an idea a few months back about this issue.
I’m not saying that TriMet would ever implement it, and I don’t know if there’s a precedent for it anywhere, *but*, for morning inbound rides there is a potential solution.
There will likely (at least initially) be only a couple of stops in Vancouver. For morning inbound rides, the trains will be starting their runs from the 1st Vancouver stop, and will be initially empty.
It is conceivable to open up only one car to boarding passengers N. of the Columbia, to ensure seating is available to riders boarding in N. Portland.
As ridership grows, this practice will eventually have to be abandoned … you don’t want to leave people behind in Vancouver when only one half of a train fills up.
But for the first few years of ridership, such a practice would give a more equal change for riders to get a seat.
For outbound trains, everyone is boarding as a mixed crowd, so there is no need (and no way to do it anyway) to limit boardings to one car on outbound trains.
Couldn’t the expanded light rail system keep a turnaround in North Portland, so there could be some local trains as well as the interstate ones for the morning/evening rush hours? That’s how the Underground system works in London. Building the tracks to Vancouver shouldn’t mean every train has to go all the way there, since there will continue to be a need for local service within Portland at peak times.
Yes, that is possible. Note that trains don’t have to physically turn around. Because they have operating cabs at both ends, they can reverse direction and cross over to the opposite track.
There are crossover tracks in certain places which would allow for some trains to stop and reverse direction. Ideally, a layover siding should be added for such cases, so there isn’t a lot of pressure in the schedule to reverse a train and get it out of the way.
There is an existing 3rd track at the Expo Center and a crossover which could serve this purpose. (see here). Some minor changes to the trackwork may be required — I don’t know of the switching mechanism there is currently powered/automated, but it would be trivial in the scope of the larger project to make the needed adjustments at Expo Center, if regular reversing operation of some trains is desired.
Fitting an additional layover at a point closer in, say near Lombard, would be more of a problem. There isn’t a lot of room for a 3rd track. One exists at Rose Quarter, but that’s too close to downtown.
The adaptation and reuse of layover points as lines are expanded has been done before in Portland.
Originally, all MAX trains turned around near Galleria. When Westside MAX opened, those tracks were retained but not used nearly as often. When the Red Line to the airport opened, those original tracks were then used as a layover/turnaround for the Red Line until it was extended to Beaverton. (Where, today, the Red Line trains reverse in an identical manner to what I described for the Expo Center). Now, the current Yellow Line trains use the original Galleria turn-around.
So yes, such an operation for N. Portland would be easy and nothing new, should it be desired.
This spiel about MAX driving development is a crock. So what’s the big deal about a 30 unit development on Interstate? North Portland is changing, with other projects not near MAX lines.
And what about the 323-unit project under construction on Belmont, 10 TIMES LARGER, and not near any LRT line by a long shot?
“Couldn’t the expanded light rail system keep a turnaround in North Portland, so there could be some local trains as well as the interstate ones for the morning/evening rush hours?”
>>>> Amanda, it seems that MAX was designed to be inflexible. If Trimet had done enhanced bus on Interstate instead of light rail, it could be serving BOTH Vancouverites and Portlanders NOW, without having poured more than a third of a million dollars down a rathole.
There are actually a lot of interesting projects along the Interstate MAX line. In Lower Albina the Gotham Building, including the famous Gotham Tavern, was renovated for small businesses. Across the street is an outfit selling furniture made from recycled wood, etc. Also Widmer is building a handsome addition to their brewery.
At Overlook Park, Kaiser has built additional facilities; there is the new Overlook condos mentioned, but also Ainsworth Drugs relocated across the street. Rumor has it that the owner of the Overlook restaurant near the Prescott Station has sold the adjacent block for development. This station also has the fire station, bank and the new building Arciform did.
At Killingworth Sta. IFCC and Patton Park are getting facelifts/major surgery, not to mention PDC’s Killingsworth Station and TriMet/Reach’s Crown project. And there is more…Providence clinic, New Seasons, a new Fred Meyer, new retail in Kenton. The lesson?
Station area development is best when light rail is built on arterials with excess lanes rather than adjacent to freeways where development is very tough to do.
Interestingly enough crime does not seem to be the issue on Interstate as on the Blue Line…perhaps due to stations being, for the most part, in the middle of busy nodes of activity for most hours of the day.
Interstate MAX should be the model for Milwaukie, Powell/Foster and Barbur lines. When it gets to Vancouver it will be that much better with stops at Hayden Island and Ester Short Park in downtown Vancouver.
Too many Clark count riders? a great problem to have, which I am sure can be managed.
Amanda, it seems that MAX was designed to be inflexible.
Nick, it’s funny that you mention “designed to be inflexible” right after I posted a link to a satellite image showing that flexibility for what Amanda described is already built-in to the system.
And what about the 323-unit project under construction on Belmont, 10 TIMES LARGER, and not near any LRT line by a long shot?
Belmont developed largely around streetcar service early on, giving it a development pattern which, even today, is desirable enough that more people want to live there. It currently has a frequent-service bus line following much of the original streetcar route.
Both developments are transit-oriented.
Even today, the Belmont commercial area promotes itself with large banners depicting a streetcar, as they have for several years — See here.
I think Bob is correct that it is technically possible. I am not sure it works operationally/politically. Its hard to reduce frequency of service to Vancouver just to reserve seats for people in Portland. I like Bob’s solution better. But I doubt either one is likely to happen.
Oh I hate to bring this up, but the MAX HAD ANOTHER SHUT DOWN YESTERDAY…
TriMet emailed me shortly after it happened. Twice. Both times stating shuttle buses were operating. And then a 3rd time when normal operations were restored.
I suggest anyone who’s interested should go to the TriMet web site and sign up for Rider Alerts, for all bus/MAX/streetcar lines or any particular line you’re interested in. There’s also an RSS feed available.
The question to ask is this: If a passenger waits at a normal stop, what are the odds that the vehicle they are waiting for will be on time, and what are the odds that it will deliver them to their destination on time? Despite occasional outages, MAX does very will in this regard.
“The question to ask is this: If a passenger waits at a normal stop, what are the odds that the vehicle they are waiting for will be on time, and what are the odds that it will deliver them to their destination on time? Despite occasional outages, MAX does very will in this regard”
BOB YOU JUST ASTOUND ME SOMETIMES!
I wish I could see the look on all the faces of all the people stranded at the max stations….
I wish I could see the look on all the faces of all the people stranded at the max stations…
I’m a regular MAX user myself, Al, and I’ve been “stranded” at a MAX station a couple of times — until a shuttle arrived.
I’ve also been stranded on regular bus lines.
But anecdotes won’t answer the question of which is more or less reliable.
Riders want confidence that if they show up at a stop on time, a vehicle will arrive to pick them up on time. (Or better, that service is sufficiently frequent that they don’t need to consult a schedule.)
MAX has occasional shutdowns, true. But what are the odds of a late trip, compared to buses?
So, Al, what’s your point? Should I assume that since my car broke down and stranded me once, that it’s an utterly unreliable mode of transport? I saw a TriMet bus broken down on Burnside this morning. Buses are useless too? That seems to be what you’re insinuating.
Face it – if it’s a machine, it will fail in some way, at some point in its lifespan. S__t happens. MAX had a hiccup, but people got where they needed to go. Most days, on most transit lines, that doesn’t happen. I’ve been riding MAX regularly since it opened and have never, ever been stranded. But, that’s just my experience.
Actually, since we’re tossing anecdotes around here, a few weeks back, there was a major traffic accident on the Morrison Bridge, which closed it for several hours. That, in turn, tied up the Hawthorne Bridge, which is my commute.
So, the driver on my #14 bus wisely took us all up to the Lloyd District so we could connect to – drumroll, please – MAX, since it was the most reliable way to get downtown that morning.
Interestingly enough crime does not seem to be the issue on Interstate as on the Blue Line…perhaps due to stations being, for the most part, in the middle of busy nodes of activity for most hours of the day… Interstate MAX should be the model for Milwaukie, Powell/Foster and Barbur lines.
Indeed, if Milwaukie is as committed to a crime-free MAX as their mayor claims they are, they should reconsider their efforts to set the alignment behind the Waldorf School – away from their pedestrian-friendly central city area. If Mayor Jim Bernard really wants his people to be safe using public transit, he won’t push to “hide” the MAX alongside a freight rail track behind a large school campus. The MAX should be part of the streetscape, not hidden away from the bulk of Milwaukie’s pedestrian activity.
“There are actually a lot of interesting projects along the Interstate MAX line.”
>>>> And there are a lot of interesting projects in North Portland that are NOT on the Interstate MAX. Which just goes to prove my point that MAX os not necessary for this.
Why do you say MAX drove this development?
Was it built just because MAX was there?
Or because millions in subsidies made it possible? As is usually the case as everyone on this blog knows.
If large subsidies made it possible claiming MAX made it happen is Bush-like honesty.
You seem to know a lot about this development. In the name of counteracting “bush-like honesty” can you detail exactly which subsidies this development received? (There weren’t any specific financial details mentioned in the BizJournals article or the MSNBC article.)
As you say, “everyone on this blog knows”, but just in case you’re wrong about that, please spell it out for us.
News Seasons sited there explicitly because of MAX; likewise Archiform, the Gotham building and The Overlook. None received any subsidy.
The Crown project and Killingsworth project are receiving some public funds to insure affordable rental and for purchase units.
Old Intertate Avenue was a mess; MAX was the occasion for a total rebuild of a very rundown arterial that had never recovered from the construction of I-5 in the 60’s. Its a success; why complain?
To proclaim that Max and/or the Portland Streetcar truly drives development is falsehood rhetoric. If that was conclusive, there would be absolutely no call for property tax abatements to be handed out like candy for new developments, and the fleecing of taxpayers to bestow incentives on wealthy developers would NOT be occurring. Furthermore, Tri-Met would NOT at all be in the land development business, thereby concentrating efforts only on providing service and security on transit
call for property tax abatements to be handed out like candy
Are they really being handed out like candy? What percentage of new units built within 1/4 mile of a MAX or streetcar line receive abatements, and what are the terms that go along with those abatements?
I’ll ask you the same question I asked “John”, because the articles don’t mention it — what subsidies or abatements, if any, did The Overlook development receive? Further, if any subsidies or abatements are involved, are they out of scale with other similar developments not along a rail transit line?
Public funds are ususally offered so that projects achieve public policy goals…most of which these critics don’t like. So run for mayor and change those goals.
No one can say to what extent transit investment drives development, but a lot of investors, realtors, developers seem to be stepping up in these corridors. Public investment of any kind…which most of our critics don’t like regardless of purpose…often attract private investment. Isn’t that the idea?
Mark Mullins Says: JK and his compatriots don’t mention other cities like Seattle, L.A., the Bay Area, San Diego, Sacramento, D.C., suburban New York City, Miami, etc.–where sprawl has historically been unregulated and home prices are much higher than in Portland.
And they don’t mention cities like Las Vegas, Phoenix, Orlando, and Denver–where sprawl has been unregulated and home prices are close to Portland’s. JK: Wrong! Most West coast cities have tighter land restrictions than Oregon. The claim otherwise is just a planner lie to cover up their screwups. Here is what a New York Times column had to say about it: By: Paul Krugman
Now for the economic geography. Last summer I suggested that when discussing housing, we should think of America as two countries, Flatland and the Zoned Zone.
In Flatland, there’s plenty of room to build houses, so house prices mainly reflect the cost of construction. As a result, Flatland is pretty much immune to housing bubbles. And in Flatland, houses have, if anything, become easier to afford since 2000 because of falling interest rates.
In the Zoned Zone, by contrast, buildable lots are scarce, and house prices mainly reflect the price of these lots rather than the cost of construction. As a result, house prices in the Zoned Zone are much less tied down by economic fundamentals than prices in Flatland.
By my rough estimate, slightly under 30 percent of Americans live in the Zoned Zone, which comprises most of the Northeast Corridor, coastal Florida, much of the West Coast and a few other locations.
Mark Mullins Says: This is one reason why the Debunking Cato article rings much truer than Cato’s Debunking Portland site. The latter focuses on a few anecdotal situations, while the Debunking Cato takes a broader view and is honest about the benefits AND the drawbacks of Portland’s system. JK: Better re-read that Cato article – it is correct and the debunkers are liars. (Planners have to lie to us, otherwise the whole region would rebel against their manipulations)
I have to agree that I don’t call ONE development a “success”. Today I pass a new 50+ unit senior housing development going up in Hillsdale – NOWHERE near a MAX or Streetcar line (but it is near a bus stop that serves FIVE different bus lines – 44, 45, 54, 55 and 56), so does that make the Hillsdale neighborhood a “success”?
Along the MAX line there are plenty of vacant spaces that never developed – in some cases along the eastside line which has been open since 1986. We’ve seen buildings fail and be torn down (namely the Rockwood Fred Meyer). There’s one now-unused MAX platform that is growing weeds in Gresham surrounded by undeveloped lots. Despite the hype of transit-oriented development proponents, many major MAX stations are surrounded by nothing more than massive, subsidzed parking lots for people to drive to and from.
The Airport MAX line was a shining example of a TOD failure – what was supposed to be the best example of transit-oriented, mixed-use commercial development became nothing more than a cookie-cutter strip mall with the same stores that exist 10 times over in the Portland area. (But hey, it has IKEA!)
And it doesn’t help that the buildings that were renovated were the result of massive public subsidy – was it MAX that brought those buildings back to life, or was it free money handed to those building owners?
As much as one residential development that holds only 30 households can be claimed a “success”; I could name any suburban subdivision development with over 200 houses which would be a success by a factor of 6 because more households are finding homes to live in. Whether or not people want “urban living” or “suburban living” is a debate that is pointless – people want both. Some people want to live in the city and I find no reason to deny those individuals that choice. Some people want to live in the ‘burbs and again, I find no reason to deny those indivdiuals that choice. No matter what your choice is, you should expect to pay for it – those who choose to live in the city shouldn’t get some special tax break “just because”. If I want to maintain a yard for my son to play in, I shouldn’t have the City of Portland or Metro telling me “NO!”.
It certainly does not help that TriMet does not invest in bus stop improvements that could easily increase property values and the desire for businesses to locate/improve near existing bus stops. For those seniors living in that new development in Hillsdale, their transit access is a signed bus stop in the middle of a busy commercial district that is “walkable”. TriMet should be building out that bus stop to be a “bus station” with enhanced, oversize shelters, transit tracker displays, garbage cans, benches, and landscaping. There is absolutely, positively ZERO reason why TriMet can’t do that.
Mark Mullins Says: JK and his compatriots don’t mention other cities like Seattle, L.A., the Bay Area, San Diego, Sacramento, D.C., suburban New York City, Miami, etc.–where sprawl has historically been unregulated and home prices are much higher than in Portland.
And they don’t mention cities like Las Vegas, Phoenix, Orlando, and Denver–where sprawl has been unregulated and home prices are close to Portland’s. JK: Wrong! Most West coast cities have tighter land restrictions than Oregon. The claim otherwise is just a planner lie to cover up their screwups. Here is what a New York Times column had to say about it: By: Paul Krugman
Now for the economic geography. Last summer I suggested that when discussing housing, we should think of America as two countries, Flatland and the Zoned Zone.
In Flatland, there’s plenty of room to build houses, so house prices mainly reflect the cost of construction. As a result, Flatland is pretty much immune to housing bubbles. And in Flatland, houses have, if anything, become easier to afford since 2000 because of falling interest rates.
In the Zoned Zone, by contrast, buildable lots are scarce, and house prices mainly reflect the price of these lots rather than the cost of construction. As a result, house prices in the Zoned Zone are much less tied down by economic fundamentals than prices in Flatland.
By my rough estimate, slightly under 30 percent of Americans live in the Zoned Zone, which comprises most of the Northeast Corridor, coastal Florida, much of the West Coast and a few other locations.
Read the rest at: krugblog.wordpress.com/favorite-columns/
Mark Mullins Says: This is one reason why the Debunking Cato article rings much truer than Cato’s Debunking Portland site. The latter focuses on a few anecdotal situations, while the Debunking Cato takes a broader view and is honest about the benefits AND the drawbacks of Portland’s system. JK: Better re-read that Cato article – it is correct and the debunkers are wromg. (Planners have to lie to us, otherwise the whole region would rebel against their manipulations and their proven false excuses to shovel billion$ to developers and light rail hucksters.)
Erik Halstead Says: TriMet should be building out that bus stop to be a “bus station” with enhanced, oversize shelters, transit tracker displays, garbage cans, benches, and landscaping. There is absolutely, positively ZERO reason why TriMet can’t do that. JK: I suspect that Trimet really can’t do that – it would cost money and they have spent it all on toy trains.
So you both have no knowledge or familiarity with the millions poured into TOD’s and other smart growth developement? Either in direct cash subsidies, waved fees, low interest loans, various business/etc., grants, and various property tax abatements?
I guess if you both don’t know anything about these subsidies there’s not much reason to talk about it.
You can’t expect someone to take you through the whole thing and bring you up to speed.
News Seasons sited there explicitly because of MAX?
Oh brother is that rich.
Lenny how do you know who gets subsidies and who doesn’t?
I would like to know your source?
Interstate would have been much better off without light rail sucking up $70 million from property taxes in the 3744 acre Urban Renewal District. UR which spends countless millions spurring the development you falsly claim MAX “drives”.
It aint MAX that drives any of it. It’s the money for property owners and developers.
Obviously that MAX money would have “driven” more development that the MAX itself.
Interstate was a low rent disrtrict before. So what?
It’s not too much of a success for the low rent citizenry.
The Airport MAX line was a shining example of a TOD failure
The planners were stupid to ever consider such a development in the first place. Like who wants to live next to a noisy airport? Deaf people? Well I can’t imagine it being much worse than my old place on 7th with the constant sound of sirens and groups of 20+ skateboarders in the parking garage at night. In Salem they’re trying to develop this supposed eco development called Pringle Creek and it’s RIGHT next to the airport. I imagine a similar flop in this dumb plan, too.
Housing was never proposed at Cascade Station. And it was Bechtel, not city planners, who planned the site (and paid for the Airport MAX line in exchange for the development rights of that site).
News Seasons sited there explicitly because of MAX?
Well, that’s what they said. Maybe they were lying.
You can’t expect someone to take you through the whole thing and bring you up to speed.
Well yes, they can. That’s kind of the point of persuading people – you have to “bring them up to speed.” Sometimes you may find they already know more about it than you.
I would like to know your source?
Public subsidies are public knowledge. Lenny has served on the Interstate Urban Renewal advisory committee that makes recommendations to the city on how some of those subsidies are allocated.
There is absolutely, positively ZERO reason why TriMet can’t do that.
At least if you discount that it costs money as a reason. Trimet is focusing on improving amenities on frequent service routes which include over half the bus riders in the system. I believe that includes the 54 and 56 which you said that stop serves. Do you know what the plans are for those routes?
“News Seasons sited there explicitly because of MAX?
Well, that’s what they said. Maybe they were lying.”
>>>> Or maybe they said that so that they could get their parking lot put in front of the store, not in the back. In order words, they might have been playing the planners.
Bob R. Says: JK says: Most West coast cities have tighter land restrictions than Oregon.
You heard it here first, folks! JK: You didn’t know that!!!! Well they do.
I am constantly amazed by your lack of knowledge of the real world. I guess that’s a requirement to believe all that Portland Progressive crap.
I’m just glad the land restrictions aren’t as bad in Salem as in the Portland morass. Here you can still actually get around in a car without encountering gridlock all the time. I noticed even going on a grocery shopping trip that the store wasn’t nearly as crowded as I use to see in Beaverton and Portland and there was ample parking all around. I wonder if anyone has done any studies how the wasted time in commute (be it in a car sitting on the freeway or riding on the 2MPH snail rails) has hindered the Portland area economy? I bet the loss is staggering…..
I truly don’t understand what is “progressive” about expecting everyone to live in cement structures, line the beautiful Willamette river banks with concrete and in-fill, let the sewer dump right in it (and not remedy the problem for decades on end, only doing so after a federal mandate), and polluting the air even more with cars going nowhere and hindering the movement of goods and people because its so congested. Add to that they’ve driven out all the large employers to the point that now the top 5 employers in Portland are governmental entities (state, federal, city, county and OHSU). What is progressive about that? Is it any wonder people are flocking to Vancouver in droves?
I am constantly amazed at your ability to argue by assertion, and then back up those arguments by repeating the same assertion. JK: I didn’t argue by assertion – I provided a quote from a blazing liberal New York Times columnist. You are just ignoring reality again.
Hey, Portland, you’re slipping ….. #10 “greenest city”. Maybe next year #100. It’s like how Forbes in 2002 said Portland was #1 place to live now what is it #580?
I didn’t argue by assertion – I provided a quote from a blazing liberal New York Times columnist.
I read the entire Krugman article. Nowhere does it say that most west coast cities have tighter land restrictions than Oregon. The words “Oregon” or “Portland” did not appear once in the article.
Let me remind you that you posted your quote about Oregon in direct response to Mark Mullins who said this:
JK and his compatriots don’t mention other cities like Seattle, L.A., the Bay Area, San Diego, Sacramento, D.C., suburban New York City, Miami, etc.–where sprawl has historically been unregulated and home prices are much higher than in Portland.
And they don’t mention cities like Las Vegas, Phoenix, Orlando, and Denver–where sprawl has been unregulated and home prices are close to Portland’s.
You then immediately replied:
Wrong! Most West coast cities have tighter land restrictions than Oregon. The claim otherwise is just a planner lie to cover up their screwups. Here is what a New York Times column had to say about it: …
So, please show how the west coast cities mentioned by Mark, to whom you were directly replying, have stricter land use requirements than Portland, which would explain why they have higher prices than Portland.
For year’s now we’ve heard a constant barrage of criticisms that Portland is some kind of poster-child for draconian land use restrictions and government interference. Now you’re telling us that there’s plenty of other places which are more strict. That’s news.
Greg Tomkins in Salem,
Remember when you promised to do something other that sit around all day bashing Portland on this blog? Something about starting oregontransport.com? How’s that coming?
I don’t bash Portland. There are some good things too (and I mentioned I love biking there). I just think y’all need to try harder to live according to the principles you aspire toward.
Jim Karlock is accusing someone else of ignoring reality and being clueless about the real world.
I think that pretty much defines “irony.”
And Greg: we’ve been here before. You keep spouting complete nonsense like “they’ve driven out all the large employers to the point that now the top 5 employers in Portland are governmental entities” with no factual support whatsoever. Can you provide ANY case of a “large employer” being “driven out” of the Portland Metro area? Sure, Columbia Sportswear left Portland — they relocated to Beaverton, a couple miles outside Portland city limits, and still employ lots of Portlanders. But what large employer ever was “driven out”?
Greg, you’re doing it again. The article largely focuses on Tektronix, which was recently purchased by a large east-coast company. That wasn’t Tektronix picking up and moving because they didn’t like it here, it was a simple case of corporate mergers/acquisitions. Happens all the time.
Can you give us examples of a few company headquarters which left the Portland metro area because they were, as you said, “chased away”? Hmmm?
Al, neither of those articles listed a company that left the Portland metro area. One listed the results of a survey but listed no companies whatsoever, and the other was about a company moving to Canby, which is still within the metro area last time I checked.
Clearly the Canby company and the survey respondents attribute negative factors to the City of Portland, which is something worth considering, but there’s still no evidence that companies are being “chased away” in droves, which is what Greg has asserted numerous times over the years.
My parents used to own a building on Grand back in the early 90’s but they grew frustrated at the sea of taxes and overregulation by the overzealous city and county governments up there.
As for examples of companies that were once headquartered in Portland and are no longer….
North Pacific Group moved to Lincoln Center near Washington Square.
U.S. Bank moved its headquarters to Minnesota. After its last employees are vacated from the tower and their rent is up, it will no longer be called U.S. Bank Tower but whomever its new owner is.
Fred Meyer, another Oregon mainstay got swallowed up by another company called Kroger and lost its HQ in Portland.
PacifiCorp used to be headquartered in Portland before it was made into a Berkshire Hathaway sudsidiary and its HQ relocated to Iowa.
Freightliner is in the process of being chased out of town.
I’m sure there are many others but those are the ones I know of for sure.
Which policy in particular is chasing them out of town, and how would you change that policy?
I don’t know. Oregon California and Washington don’t seem to have this problem, though. And it seems these new cottage industries our governor is coddling so much are only here because of massive incentives. They should be incentivising all companies the same way, not just solar manufacturers and others appeasing the green crowd. But on the other hand I think its great that we will be known as trendsetters in this regard and I have even invested my own money in green, ethanol and biodiesel companies because I think they are the future.
I don’t know. Oregon California and Washington don’t seem to have this problem, though.
Neither does Portland. There’s no “problem” here with companies leaving town. The only “problem” is that Portland’s pro-business environment is good enough that home-grown companies do well, and then much bigger out-of-state companies buy them out.
The last company I remember that actually pulled up stakes and left the area was Georgia Pacific, which (IIRC) was mostly-Atlanta based already, and was simply consolidating its operations in Georgia.
As far as I know, Portland has not had a situation like Seattle did in 2001, when Boeing moved its corporate headquarters to Chicago.
“about expecting everyone to live in cement structures, line the beautiful Willamette river banks with concrete”
Portland was originally developed as a port… The reason that they lined the river with cement is because that was a lot better than what the river was like before they lined it with cement:
The reason the river in Salem isn’t lined with cement has a lot to do with a waterfall in Oregon City that makes it hard to get ships that far upriver…
The reason the river in Salem isn’t lined with cement has a lot to do with a waterfall in Oregon City that makes it hard to get ships that far upriver…
No, a PANAMAX ship will not make it to Salem – but since Portland is trying to be all “European” I spent a month in an inland German community that had an active shipping port based solely on small riverboats.
No, I was not in Venice. (I was northwest of Hamburg.)
Wow, thanks for the link to the old photos archive on portlandonline.com. I’m a big local history nut, especially Portland and Oregon City history where my family hails from. They used to ship fruit and other agricultural goods from O.C. and Portland to markets in S.F. and L.A. back in the day (late 1800’s to early 1900s) before the city “encroached” on their farm off what is now Bolton in West Linn and they sold the original Donation Land Claim, created the Bolton Land Company sold subdivisions and moved South to Dayton where we’ve been for 5 generations.
Ross,
Public subsidies are public information but they sure aren’t public knowledge.
I guarantee that Lenny serving on the Interstate Urban Renewal advisory committee didn’t give him any access to any list of subsidies in the district. The proof of that is no such list will ever be got, provided, reported or appear here.
Lenny has never even seen a North Interstate URD accounting of money spent either.
Just as with SoWa Urban Renewal District no such accounting is provided or available.
As far as Freightliner and policies drivig them out?
Maybe it’s the State trying to stiff them for $210 million.
aybe it’s the State trying to stiff them for $210 million
They’re probably chomping at the bit to drive all the industry on Swan Island out so they can build more condos and pearl district style development out there, too!
If the Overlook Condos got anything like the Belmont Dairy then they got millions in loans, grants and tax credits. But Lenny is on record here claiming they got no subsisides.
BELMONT DAIRY – CASE STUDY
PROJECT COST: $14 million
FINANCING: Construction Period Financing:
Bank of America – $4.6 million
Permanent Financing:
Network for Oregon Affordable Housing – $4.6 million
Construction/Permanent (Public) Financing:
City of Portland Livable City Housing Council Loan – $600,000
Portland Development Commission Loan through
Community Development Block Grant Loan Program – $750,000
State of Oregon Transit-Oriented Development (CMAQ-TOD) Loan – $300,000
Low-Income Housing Tax Credits/Related Financing:
FNMA Tax Credit Investment – $8.3 million
City of Portland Multifamily Housing Tax Credit Bonds (Bridge Loan) – $7.2 million
.6 million
If the Overlook Condos got anything like the Belmont Dairy then they got millions in loans
So you don’t actually know. Thanks for finally admitting that.
The Belmont Dairy isn’t on a MAX line, so all you’ve done is provide evidence that subsidies for affordable housing aren’t necessarily tied to MAX projects.
Regarding the Belmont Dairy, what exactly is your point? As someone who has lived in the neighborhood before that project and since, I would say that it was a critical project in terms of turning the rest of the area around.
Are you saying that there should never be that kind of investment? That it is wrong? That it is good?
From my personal perspective, that project was a launching pad for a ton of other projects that have helped make Sunnyside a really popular neighborhood (for people with kids, too).
Maybe it’s the State trying to stiff them for $210 million.
“Stiff them” implies the state is unwilling to pay something that the state owes. From reading the article, it seems rather that the state thinks that the state is entitled to a percentage of punitive damages in a settlement in a lawsuit that Freightliner, along with Daimler-Chrysler, lost.
They’re probably chomping at the bit to drive all the industry on Swan Island out so they can build more condos and pearl district style development out there, too!
Got any evidence of that? I’m sure Lenny would like to hear it if you do. Don’t hold back.
If the condos and “livable” developments are so wonderful, then why not let natural market forces decide whether they are sustainable or not? Why do they need any subsidy whatsoever? It’s because they are unnatural and the local governments are trying to force a style on the populace they would otherwise not choose for themselves (remember government knows best, espcially Metro and PDC).
If the condos and “livable” developments are so wonderful, then why not let natural market forces decide whether they are sustainable or not?
Currently, the market rate for many multi-story condo developments is much higher per square foot than suburban detached single-family homes. There is a demand of these kinds of units. (Although in the near future I suspect real estate demand will fall off considerably market-wide.)
The subsidies given are often couple with or intended to provide affordable options for those not earning incomes capable of buying at the higher market-demanded rates.
Whether you think that’s a good thing or not, the fact of the matter is that close-in high-rise housing has been a hot market the past decade, and the subsidies are intended to help keep that market from pushing lower-income groups out of the city.
Just look at some of the organizations that “John” mentioned in his list of subsidies, most of which are in the form of low-rate loans, not direct payments:
Network for Oregon Affordable Housing
City of Portland Livable City Housing Council Loan
Community Development Block Grant Loan Program
Transit-Oriented Development (CMAQ-TOD) Loan
City of Portland Multifamily Housing Tax Credit Bonds (Bridge Loan)
So then why not subsidize everyone who wants to live somewhere “desirable”? Why does it have to be in a concrete highrise in the middle of the city? Maybe they should subsidize people who want to live in the country, too! I think its discrimination.
“Maybe they should subsidize people who want to live in the country, too!”
Cities have tried that, (actually, the real reason didn’t have to do with “wanting to live in the country,” it had to do with NIMBYs that didn’t want public housing in their neighborhood, but the results are the same,) and it tends to cause more problems than it solves. Specifically, the families have to own 2 cars to get to work and childcare and shopping and the like, (cause they can’t get public transit, and there isn’t anything near them,) and so the subsidy of the housing gets eaten up by car ownership costs, and the low income people that are being subsidized have more money problems than they did before they got the subsidy…
So then why not subsidize everyone who wants to live somewhere “desirable”?
I think that is part of what Metro has done in trying to require affordable housing throughout the region. Without subsidies, there would be many people who worked in expensive communities who could not afford to live there.
In Marin County, across the Golden Gate Bridge from San Francisco, fireman, police, teachers etc simply can’t find affordable housing in the community. Not to mention retail employees etc. Partially as a result they have enormous congestion problems as well as employers who have given up an moved out because they can’t keep pay their employees enough to live anywhere near their job.
This is actually one of the reasons a lot of small businesses in Washington County were very supportive of MAX. They hoped that it would improve access to affordable housing for their low income workers. They had enormous turn over problems because people who lived on the east side of Portland would take the job but quit as soon as they found a job closer to home.
Having a mixture of housing in a community benefits everyone. Which is why the public subsidizes some units in a lot of developments, especially near transit.
So now we have shifted the conversation to the legitimacy of the subsidies?
I thought we were talking about giving MAX the credit for the development?
Back to the post, without the subsidies the bulk of TOD development would not happen.
With or without MAX or streetcars.
Yet MAX is given credit for spurring development and all sort of things it has not provided.
Certainly not congestion reduction or affordablde housing or access to affordable housing.
Ross leaping back (without any source)into the theoretical world of MAX benefits in Washington County is classic.
He obvioulsy doesn’t live, work or do business in Washington County.
If he did he would know how lame the heavily subsidized MAX/TOD Beaverton Round is while a half mile away, down the street at Beaverton Town Center shopping center is always a bussling activity of many things the public enjoys.
I’ll wager The Overlook did get subsidies as they are so plentiful, why would they not?
From the $20,000 store front grants to tax credits to tax abatements to many direct payment, subsidies are the linchpins not transit.
re Freightliner: it is moving about 10% of its corporate staff to Charlotte (with its new lightrail line). These are Sales & Marketing folks whom management whats to be closer to where most of their customers and suppliers are…east of the Mississippi River.
The developers of The Overlook should be acknowledged…they live in the community and have created some affordable workforce housing in a pretty pricey neighborhood with little help from PDC, Metro TOD or TriMet. The project will have a cafe/market on the first floor…something long needed in this stretch of Interstate.
PS the problem with the project in Hillsdale is that is virtually impossible to safely cross the B-H Highway at that point, access to transit is poor and Wild Oats market just closed.
they sure aren’t public knowledge.
he would know how lame the heavily subsidized MAX/TOD Beaverton Round is while a half mile away, down the street at Beaverton Town Center shopping center is always a bussling activity of many things the public enjoys.
Beaverton Town Center was much more heavily subsidized than the Round.
“They’re probably chomping at the bit to drive all the industry on Swan Island out so they can build more condos and pearl district style development out there, too!”
Who are “they” exactly? The City is engaged in a multi-year river planning process, and while some changes to the zoning map are likely, not one inch of Swan Island will allow residential development.
Well then “they” aren’t paying attention, because “they” are making absolutely no effort to change Swan Island from industrial use. Or maybe your premise is just fundamentally flawed.
This thread is about whether MAX spurs development. It doesn’t. The 100s of millions in borrowed Urban Renewal subsidies does.
Just like Belmont Dairy where there is no MAX.
All of the new or re-development along Interstate will be an outcome of tremendous public spending. I’m not even addressing the validity of all that spending right now essentially none of it would happen if only MAX were and no other tax money was available.
So the phony credit given to MAX is just that, phoney.
And as Milwaukie gears up to get their MAX, tax payers will see new Urban Renewal plans and spending to do what MAX does not.
Lenny, what do you call “little help from PDC, Metro TOD or TriMet” The Overlook got?
You first said the Overlook got no subsidy now you say they got little subsidy.
I’ll venture to guess they got 80% of the development planning costs paid by PDC’s DOS program, low interest loans were had, some fees waved and when the project is complete some form of tax abatement will show up on the the assessors record.
Too bad there isn’t a one stop link for viewing State/PDC/Metro/TriMet subsidies.
How convenient that the full public cost is so buried and inaccessible.
So much so that members of Urban Renewal Citizen Advisory groups never see the costs either.
It seems like the Streetcar has been handmaiden (I don’t know if “spurring” is accurate) to much more development for the buck than MAX. They’re still planning tall buildings over there in the Pearl. The next big MAX project–to Milwaukie– has some very dubious potential, IMO. Much of the route is parkland or consumed by just getting over the Willamette. There are also established neighborhoods of single family homes. The area south of Tacoma Street already has plans for mixed use–not high density residential development. Plus, there is a big switching yard–still needed for our freight rail providers.
That leaves some scattered pockets that conceivably could be redeveloped. But that is contingent upon developers willing to take the risk. And since these are close to downtown is a MAX the appropriate system for that purpose? The Milwaukie MAX is also slated for a new bridge, adding to the expense. Why not, instead, give the South Waterfront its own bridge? Link Hwy 99 and Holgate Bv. to SW Macadam over Ross Island and provide some entrances and exits to I-5 at the western approach.
“Much of the route is parkland or consumed by just getting over the Willamette[…]That leaves some scattered pockets that conceivably could be redeveloped.”
You’ve been told this before, but I’ll say it again: The scattered pockets are where the stations will be. The stations will not be in the middle of the parkland or the Willamette, and given that most people have to get on the light rail lines at stations, those areas won’t get developed.
Before Matthew and Ron get into a battle here, I’d like to point out that there can be linear-style development in a corridor, especially when the stops are not too far apart … Interstate Ave. is an example of what I’m talking about, and then there can be nodal development around station areas. Westside MAX is more of this character, and I suspect the Milwaukie line will resemble Westside more than it will Interstate.
Much of the route is parkland or consumed by just getting over the Willamette.
You keep repeating this over and over. But the fact is development happens where there are stations, not where there is track. If you put a station every other block, as you do with street car, you do get more development opportunities. And if downtown is any example, you can also almost walk as fast as the transit will take you.
The point of MAX is to be a regional transit system. Its not designed to move people just a few blocks at a time, even if that is the way it works in downtown Portland. It is designed to allow people to take buses to get to Milwaukie and then use MAX to get to their destination relatively quickly. Development is spurred around those MAX stations because they now have direct access to the regional transit network rather than just a local bus (or streetcar) connection.
Let’s see some hard numbers as to the public subsidy of Beaverton Town Center vs. The Round at Beaverton Central.
Hard numbers!? I thought this discussion was entirely based on speculation and unsupported assertions. Where are the hard numbers on any public subsidy for Overlook? We all know that “they” are hiding the real subsidies from us. What makes you think “they” aren’t hiding the subsidies for Beaverton Town Center too …
“I thought this discussion was entirely based on speculation and unsupported assertions.”
No, no, that was the Amtrak thread. This one is based on conspiracy theories about how the “Portland power elite” is secretly doing this behind everyone’s backs.
This one is based on conspiracy theories about how the “Portland power elite” is secretly doing this behind everyone’s backs.
Ah, my mistake.
Just so that it is clear, I was making a point. I not only lack hard numbers for subsidies for Beaverton Town Square, but am completely unaware of any direct public subsidy. I frankly don’t care enough to try to find out if there was one. The Round has been a fiasco, but I think largely because of poor decisions by its private developers.
I worked for an attorney representing one of the subcontractors early in The Round’s development. What I got out of it was there was a 150% cost overrun (that’s 2.5 x projected costs) in the very early stages of development, because site preparation turned out to be way costlier than expected. The initial investors got cold feet and pulled out, and the whole project wound up frozen for a few years.
I don’t know if the early overruns had anything to do with the design of the project, or just problems specific to the site that would have plagued ANY project being built there.
I think the major problem with The Round is that it’s simply too small: it’s a few buildings, not a neighborhood. It’s surrounded by heavy traffic and plenty of large parking lots. The area isn’t pedestrian friendly, and there really isn’t much to DO there.
Create dense housing over retail and good pedestrian-oriented streets for several blocks in every direction, with apartment complexes and condos lining the edges of the development, and watch the place take off.
The Round has been a fiasco because the Smart Growth/TOD plan sucks and it doesn’t work any more than the Cascade Station plan did.
But The Round is getting millions more poured into it by Metro and Beaverton.
Like all other MAX stations. Gresham Station, now 20 years in the making is still getting millions poured into it.
Millions here, millions there, while bus service flounders, infrastructure falls further into disrepare and excuses fly.
Don’t look too close though, just blame the developers and toss out bogus claims of Beaverton Town Center being subsidized.
The only thing MAX drives is more schemes and spending on “Smart Growth” development.
“Like all other MAX stations. Gresham Station, now 20 years in the making is still getting millions poured into it.
Millions here, millions there, while bus service flounders, infrastructure falls further into disrepare and excuses fly.”
bogus claims of Beaverton Town Center being subsidized.
How do you know they are bogus? You have repeatedly claimed projects were subsidized with no evidence. There almost certainly were public funds spent to support the Town Square development. If you are claiming there weren’t, prove it.
There almost certainly were public funds spent to support the Town Square development. If you are claiming there weren’t, prove it.
Preceding comment by SAME poster:
Just so that it is clear, I was making a point. I not only lack hard numbers for subsidies for Beaverton Town Square, but am completely unaware of any direct public subsidy. I frankly don’t care enough to try to find out if there was one.
The point of subsidies CANNOT be proven for Beaverton Town Square BUT it can be proven for other developments tied to the MAX line.
Unless you want to take the sick and twisted argument that “well there are roads and traffic signals to Beaverton Town Square and the parking lot is tied to the sewer system…” In that case, you MUST apply the same principles in “subsidies” towards MAX related projects.
And I fully expect an accounting of the “subsidy” provided by electric ratepayers of Portland General Electric and Pacific Power & Light in the increase of electric rates they must pay to cover the reduced rates provided to TriMet, as well as the cost bourne by Columbia Gorge landowners and users for the costs/impacts from the Boardman Coal Plant for electrical output to generate electricity for TriMet as well. I also expect an accounting of the security costs bourne by agencies other than TriMet (i.e. Hillsboro, Beaverton, Portland and Gresham Police and the Washington County Sheriff’s OFfice) that TriMet does not reimburse the agencies for. I also expect an accounting for the subsidy given to TriMet for TriMet’s lack of paying road user fees by its vehicle fleet for MAX related purposes. And the costs of MAX park-and-ride lots too.
107 responses to “Who Says MAX Doesn’t Drive Development”
Oddly enough, I’m going to play contrarian here and take issue with a quote from the article:
The stretch is _already_ a desirable place to live, work and eat. In part, due to MAX and the streetscape improvements that came with it, but also in part due to the long-time efforts of businesses and neighborhood groups.
I think it is better to say that this represents the kind of development that comes along once an area is recognized as being a desirable place to live, work and eat. It can even be something which improves such an environment. But for promoters to claim that their development is going to bring these qualities to the area is way overstating the case.
– Bob R.
JK: I’ll rise to the challenge and say MAX Doesn’t Drive Development! And I’ll keep saying it as long as they ALSO have to give property tax abatements, low interest loans and sweet land deals to get that sort of junk built. See DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/LightRailDevelopment.htm
Why would anyone pay “ $199,000 to $360,000″ to buy a tacky little condo, when in a free market city, that would be more than enough, to buy an average house on a real piece of land. (Average home price in Houston: $155.800; Portland: $299.700 – See realtor.org/Research.nsf/files/MSAPRICESF.pdf/$FILE/MSAPRICESF.pdf
(Of course the speculators might get sucked in for one final blow off in condo speculation.)
BTW, with Interstate ave already congested, I-5 a parking lot and the MAX near capacity (and dreaming of shipping thousands of Vancouverites through the area), how are all the new people going to get around? (I have heard suggestions that Trimet may reduce or eliminate service along Interstate to accommodate the Vancouverites – so much for Trimet’s BS about rail being permeant, unlike bus.)
Thanks
JK
Jim K said:
“MAX near capacity”
Wow. Think about that for a minute, the afternoon rush hour in North Portland has 5 trains an hour, with [about] 7 cars per hour. Each car carries 166 people, for a total 1162 people/hour, in one direction, or more than half a freeway lane…
Remember, you read it here: Jim K says that MAX carries half a freeway lane in N Portland, just a few years after it opened, even before it went to Vancouver…
(And that is with mostly single car trains at 12 minute headways, The system is actually designed for two car trains at 5 minute headways, (with a partial power outage…)
Why would anyone pay “$199,000 to $360,000” to buy a tacky little condo…
Because I don’t want to pay that kind of money to live in a house with a yard that I will not use or want to maintain (thus I would have to pay somebody to maintain it for me) and also be forced to own and maintain a car to conduct my daily activities.
Jim, when are you going to realize that not everybody shares your concept of the ideal lifestyle?
I would gladly pay twice as much money to live in Portland than Houston.
Houston is Hell with the Lid off.
It’s interesting that JK and others tend to zero in on Houston when trying to claim that sanity in land use produces high housing prices. Yes, you can get a cheap house in Houston, and you also have a miserable quality of life with long commutes, traffic, crime, high property taxes, unsafe drivers, hurricanes, and heat.
JK and his compatriots don’t mention other cities like Seattle, L.A., the Bay Area, San Diego, Sacramento, D.C., suburban New York City, Miami, etc.–where sprawl has historically been unregulated and home prices are much higher than in Portland.
And they don’t mention cities like Las Vegas, Phoenix, Orlando, and Denver–where sprawl has been unregulated and home prices are close to Portland’s.
This is one reason why the Debunking Cato article rings much truer than Cato’s Debunking Portland site. The latter focuses on a few anecdotal situations, while the Debunking Cato takes a broader view and is honest about the benefits AND the drawbacks of Portland’s system.
Portland’s median home price is 20% above the national average and 20% below the average for the western states. It is by far the most affordable major city on the West Coast.
Clearly, people are willing to pay that much for a condo in Portland or the prices would be lower, and they’re willing to pay those prices because they’d rather live here than in Houston. Prices wouldn’t be as high as they are if we hadn’t experienced a huge in-migration over the last decade.
And what’s up with this: (I have heard suggestions that Trimet may reduce or eliminate service along Interstate to accommodate the Vancouverites – so much for Trimet’s BS about rail being permeant, unlike bus.)
That sounds a lot like “I have here in my hand a list of . . . ” Pfui. Pigs will fly before TriMet does anything of the kind.
“I have heard suggestions that Trimet may reduce or eliminate service along Interstate to accommodate the Vancouverites – so much for Trimet’s BS about rail being permeant, unlike bus.”
Really? Why? I mean, what would the point be?
Given that there are homes in good condition in the area which have more square feet and sell for a bit less than the condos, and given that the condos have HOA fees, etc., the fact that people are still interested in buying condos must imply that there is a _market_ for said condos.
(Of course, here as nationwide, the entire real estate market is softening and condos are usually the first to cool down in a real estate slump, so I hope for the developers’ sake that this property hasn’t come onto the market at precisely the wrong time.)
– Bob R.
I have heard suggestions that Trimet may reduce or eliminate service along Interstate to accommodate the Vancouverites
Heard from who? And for what reason?
They are still running single-car trains much of the time on Interstate, and at 10-minute headways during morning peak. I don’t have the actual number of single-car vs. 2-car trains, but suppose that 1/3 of the trains currently are single-car. Just by moving to 2-car trains they can serve 300-400 additional incoming Vancouver riders in that hour without juggling the schedule. Going to 6-minute headways (adding 4 2-car trains per hour), gives them a capacity of 1200-1600 on those 4 trains.
So TriMet could easily serve 1500-2000 inbound Vancouver riders at peak hour WITHOUT affecting the capacity for existing Interstate-Ave. users.
(And that’s without taking into account that there is still some room in the current cars on the current schedule for additional riders.)
and the MAX near capacity
Umm, sure, right. See above.
I have heard suggestions that Trimet may reduce or eliminate service along Interstate to accommodate the Vancouverites
If light rail extends to Vancouver, it is not unlikely it will be a lot tougher for folks in North Portland to get a seat since seats are first come first serve. But that isn’t reducing service.
If light rail extends to Vancouver, it is not unlikely it will be a lot tougher for folks in North Portland to get a seat since seats are first come first serve. But that isn’t reducing service.
I had an idea a few months back about this issue.
I’m not saying that TriMet would ever implement it, and I don’t know if there’s a precedent for it anywhere, *but*, for morning inbound rides there is a potential solution.
There will likely (at least initially) be only a couple of stops in Vancouver. For morning inbound rides, the trains will be starting their runs from the 1st Vancouver stop, and will be initially empty.
It is conceivable to open up only one car to boarding passengers N. of the Columbia, to ensure seating is available to riders boarding in N. Portland.
As ridership grows, this practice will eventually have to be abandoned … you don’t want to leave people behind in Vancouver when only one half of a train fills up.
But for the first few years of ridership, such a practice would give a more equal change for riders to get a seat.
For outbound trains, everyone is boarding as a mixed crowd, so there is no need (and no way to do it anyway) to limit boardings to one car on outbound trains.
Just a thought.
– Bob R.
Couldn’t the expanded light rail system keep a turnaround in North Portland, so there could be some local trains as well as the interstate ones for the morning/evening rush hours? That’s how the Underground system works in London. Building the tracks to Vancouver shouldn’t mean every train has to go all the way there, since there will continue to be a need for local service within Portland at peak times.
Amanda –
Yes, that is possible. Note that trains don’t have to physically turn around. Because they have operating cabs at both ends, they can reverse direction and cross over to the opposite track.
There are crossover tracks in certain places which would allow for some trains to stop and reverse direction. Ideally, a layover siding should be added for such cases, so there isn’t a lot of pressure in the schedule to reverse a train and get it out of the way.
There is an existing 3rd track at the Expo Center and a crossover which could serve this purpose. (see here). Some minor changes to the trackwork may be required — I don’t know of the switching mechanism there is currently powered/automated, but it would be trivial in the scope of the larger project to make the needed adjustments at Expo Center, if regular reversing operation of some trains is desired.
Fitting an additional layover at a point closer in, say near Lombard, would be more of a problem. There isn’t a lot of room for a 3rd track. One exists at Rose Quarter, but that’s too close to downtown.
– Bob R.
Also –
The adaptation and reuse of layover points as lines are expanded has been done before in Portland.
Originally, all MAX trains turned around near Galleria. When Westside MAX opened, those tracks were retained but not used nearly as often. When the Red Line to the airport opened, those original tracks were then used as a layover/turnaround for the Red Line until it was extended to Beaverton. (Where, today, the Red Line trains reverse in an identical manner to what I described for the Expo Center). Now, the current Yellow Line trains use the original Galleria turn-around.
So yes, such an operation for N. Portland would be easy and nothing new, should it be desired.
– Bob R.
This spiel about MAX driving development is a crock. So what’s the big deal about a 30 unit development on Interstate? North Portland is changing, with other projects not near MAX lines.
And what about the 323-unit project under construction on Belmont, 10 TIMES LARGER, and not near any LRT line by a long shot?
“Couldn’t the expanded light rail system keep a turnaround in North Portland, so there could be some local trains as well as the interstate ones for the morning/evening rush hours?”
>>>> Amanda, it seems that MAX was designed to be inflexible. If Trimet had done enhanced bus on Interstate instead of light rail, it could be serving BOTH Vancouverites and Portlanders NOW, without having poured more than a third of a million dollars down a rathole.
There are actually a lot of interesting projects along the Interstate MAX line. In Lower Albina the Gotham Building, including the famous Gotham Tavern, was renovated for small businesses. Across the street is an outfit selling furniture made from recycled wood, etc. Also Widmer is building a handsome addition to their brewery.
At Overlook Park, Kaiser has built additional facilities; there is the new Overlook condos mentioned, but also Ainsworth Drugs relocated across the street. Rumor has it that the owner of the Overlook restaurant near the Prescott Station has sold the adjacent block for development. This station also has the fire station, bank and the new building Arciform did.
At Killingworth Sta. IFCC and Patton Park are getting facelifts/major surgery, not to mention PDC’s Killingsworth Station and TriMet/Reach’s Crown project. And there is more…Providence clinic, New Seasons, a new Fred Meyer, new retail in Kenton. The lesson?
Station area development is best when light rail is built on arterials with excess lanes rather than adjacent to freeways where development is very tough to do.
Interestingly enough crime does not seem to be the issue on Interstate as on the Blue Line…perhaps due to stations being, for the most part, in the middle of busy nodes of activity for most hours of the day.
Interstate MAX should be the model for Milwaukie, Powell/Foster and Barbur lines. When it gets to Vancouver it will be that much better with stops at Hayden Island and Ester Short Park in downtown Vancouver.
Too many Clark count riders? a great problem to have, which I am sure can be managed.
Amanda, it seems that MAX was designed to be inflexible.
Nick, it’s funny that you mention “designed to be inflexible” right after I posted a link to a satellite image showing that flexibility for what Amanda described is already built-in to the system.
And what about the 323-unit project under construction on Belmont, 10 TIMES LARGER, and not near any LRT line by a long shot?
Belmont developed largely around streetcar service early on, giving it a development pattern which, even today, is desirable enough that more people want to live there. It currently has a frequent-service bus line following much of the original streetcar route.
Both developments are transit-oriented.
Even today, the Belmont commercial area promotes itself with large banners depicting a streetcar, as they have for several years — See here.
– Bob R.
Amanda –
I think Bob is correct that it is technically possible. I am not sure it works operationally/politically. Its hard to reduce frequency of service to Vancouver just to reserve seats for people in Portland. I like Bob’s solution better. But I doubt either one is likely to happen.
Oh I hate to bring this up, but the MAX HAD ANOTHER SHUT DOWN YESTERDAY…
Real reliable…yea sure……
Oh I hate to bring this up, but the MAX HAD ANOTHER SHUT DOWN YESTERDAY…
TriMet emailed me shortly after it happened. Twice. Both times stating shuttle buses were operating. And then a 3rd time when normal operations were restored.
I suggest anyone who’s interested should go to the TriMet web site and sign up for Rider Alerts, for all bus/MAX/streetcar lines or any particular line you’re interested in. There’s also an RSS feed available.
The question to ask is this: If a passenger waits at a normal stop, what are the odds that the vehicle they are waiting for will be on time, and what are the odds that it will deliver them to their destination on time? Despite occasional outages, MAX does very will in this regard.
– Bob R.
“The question to ask is this: If a passenger waits at a normal stop, what are the odds that the vehicle they are waiting for will be on time, and what are the odds that it will deliver them to their destination on time? Despite occasional outages, MAX does very will in this regard”
BOB YOU JUST ASTOUND ME SOMETIMES!
I wish I could see the look on all the faces of all the people stranded at the max stations….
I wish I could see the look on all the faces of all the people stranded at the max stations…
I’m a regular MAX user myself, Al, and I’ve been “stranded” at a MAX station a couple of times — until a shuttle arrived.
I’ve also been stranded on regular bus lines.
But anecdotes won’t answer the question of which is more or less reliable.
Riders want confidence that if they show up at a stop on time, a vehicle will arrive to pick them up on time. (Or better, that service is sufficiently frequent that they don’t need to consult a schedule.)
MAX has occasional shutdowns, true. But what are the odds of a late trip, compared to buses?
– Bob R.
So, Al, what’s your point? Should I assume that since my car broke down and stranded me once, that it’s an utterly unreliable mode of transport? I saw a TriMet bus broken down on Burnside this morning. Buses are useless too? That seems to be what you’re insinuating.
Face it – if it’s a machine, it will fail in some way, at some point in its lifespan. S__t happens. MAX had a hiccup, but people got where they needed to go. Most days, on most transit lines, that doesn’t happen. I’ve been riding MAX regularly since it opened and have never, ever been stranded. But, that’s just my experience.
Actually, since we’re tossing anecdotes around here, a few weeks back, there was a major traffic accident on the Morrison Bridge, which closed it for several hours. That, in turn, tied up the Hawthorne Bridge, which is my commute.
So, the driver on my #14 bus wisely took us all up to the Lloyd District so we could connect to – drumroll, please – MAX, since it was the most reliable way to get downtown that morning.
Interestingly enough crime does not seem to be the issue on Interstate as on the Blue Line…perhaps due to stations being, for the most part, in the middle of busy nodes of activity for most hours of the day… Interstate MAX should be the model for Milwaukie, Powell/Foster and Barbur lines.
Indeed, if Milwaukie is as committed to a crime-free MAX as their mayor claims they are, they should reconsider their efforts to set the alignment behind the Waldorf School – away from their pedestrian-friendly central city area. If Mayor Jim Bernard really wants his people to be safe using public transit, he won’t push to “hide” the MAX alongside a freight rail track behind a large school campus. The MAX should be part of the streetscape, not hidden away from the bulk of Milwaukie’s pedestrian activity.
“Belmont developed largely around streetcar service early on,…”
“Even today, the Belmont commercial area promotes itself with large banners depicting a streetcar, as they have for several years — See here.”
SO WHAT! The streetcars are long gone. The fact is that TODAY a huge project is being built on a BUS line, as are many others.
“There are actually a lot of interesting projects along the Interstate MAX line.”
>>>> And there are a lot of interesting projects in North Portland that are NOT on the Interstate MAX. Which just goes to prove my point that MAX os not necessary for this.
Why do you say MAX drove this development?
Was it built just because MAX was there?
Or because millions in subsidies made it possible? As is usually the case as everyone on this blog knows.
If large subsidies made it possible claiming MAX made it happen is Bush-like honesty.
“John” –
You seem to know a lot about this development. In the name of counteracting “bush-like honesty” can you detail exactly which subsidies this development received? (There weren’t any specific financial details mentioned in the BizJournals article or the MSNBC article.)
As you say, “everyone on this blog knows”, but just in case you’re wrong about that, please spell it out for us.
– Bob R.
News Seasons sited there explicitly because of MAX; likewise Archiform, the Gotham building and The Overlook. None received any subsidy.
The Crown project and Killingsworth project are receiving some public funds to insure affordable rental and for purchase units.
Old Intertate Avenue was a mess; MAX was the occasion for a total rebuild of a very rundown arterial that had never recovered from the construction of I-5 in the 60’s. Its a success; why complain?
To proclaim that Max and/or the Portland Streetcar truly drives development is falsehood rhetoric. If that was conclusive, there would be absolutely no call for property tax abatements to be handed out like candy for new developments, and the fleecing of taxpayers to bestow incentives on wealthy developers would NOT be occurring. Furthermore, Tri-Met would NOT at all be in the land development business, thereby concentrating efforts only on providing service and security on transit
call for property tax abatements to be handed out like candy
Are they really being handed out like candy? What percentage of new units built within 1/4 mile of a MAX or streetcar line receive abatements, and what are the terms that go along with those abatements?
I’ll ask you the same question I asked “John”, because the articles don’t mention it — what subsidies or abatements, if any, did The Overlook development receive? Further, if any subsidies or abatements are involved, are they out of scale with other similar developments not along a rail transit line?
– Bob R.
Public funds are ususally offered so that projects achieve public policy goals…most of which these critics don’t like. So run for mayor and change those goals.
No one can say to what extent transit investment drives development, but a lot of investors, realtors, developers seem to be stepping up in these corridors. Public investment of any kind…which most of our critics don’t like regardless of purpose…often attract private investment. Isn’t that the idea?
Mark Mullins Says: JK and his compatriots don’t mention other cities like Seattle, L.A., the Bay Area, San Diego, Sacramento, D.C., suburban New York City, Miami, etc.–where sprawl has historically been unregulated and home prices are much higher than in Portland.
And they don’t mention cities like Las Vegas, Phoenix, Orlando, and Denver–where sprawl has been unregulated and home prices are close to Portland’s.
JK: Wrong! Most West coast cities have tighter land restrictions than Oregon. The claim otherwise is just a planner lie to cover up their screwups. Here is what a New York Times column had to say about it:
By: Paul Krugman
Now for the economic geography. Last summer I suggested that when discussing housing, we should think of America as two countries, Flatland and the Zoned Zone.
In Flatland, there’s plenty of room to build houses, so house prices mainly reflect the cost of construction. As a result, Flatland is pretty much immune to housing bubbles. And in Flatland, houses have, if anything, become easier to afford since 2000 because of falling interest rates.
In the Zoned Zone, by contrast, buildable lots are scarce, and house prices mainly reflect the price of these lots rather than the cost of construction. As a result, house prices in the Zoned Zone are much less tied down by economic fundamentals than prices in Flatland.
By my rough estimate, slightly under 30 percent of Americans live in the Zoned Zone, which comprises most of the Northeast Corridor, coastal Florida, much of the West Coast and a few other locations.
Read the rest at: http://krugblog.wordpress.com/favorite-columns/
Mark Mullins Says: This is one reason why the Debunking Cato article rings much truer than Cato’s Debunking Portland site. The latter focuses on a few anecdotal situations, while the Debunking Cato takes a broader view and is honest about the benefits AND the drawbacks of Portland’s system.
JK: Better re-read that Cato article – it is correct and the debunkers are liars. (Planners have to lie to us, otherwise the whole region would rebel against their manipulations)
Thanks
JK
I have to agree that I don’t call ONE development a “success”. Today I pass a new 50+ unit senior housing development going up in Hillsdale – NOWHERE near a MAX or Streetcar line (but it is near a bus stop that serves FIVE different bus lines – 44, 45, 54, 55 and 56), so does that make the Hillsdale neighborhood a “success”?
Along the MAX line there are plenty of vacant spaces that never developed – in some cases along the eastside line which has been open since 1986. We’ve seen buildings fail and be torn down (namely the Rockwood Fred Meyer). There’s one now-unused MAX platform that is growing weeds in Gresham surrounded by undeveloped lots. Despite the hype of transit-oriented development proponents, many major MAX stations are surrounded by nothing more than massive, subsidzed parking lots for people to drive to and from.
The Airport MAX line was a shining example of a TOD failure – what was supposed to be the best example of transit-oriented, mixed-use commercial development became nothing more than a cookie-cutter strip mall with the same stores that exist 10 times over in the Portland area. (But hey, it has IKEA!)
And it doesn’t help that the buildings that were renovated were the result of massive public subsidy – was it MAX that brought those buildings back to life, or was it free money handed to those building owners?
As much as one residential development that holds only 30 households can be claimed a “success”; I could name any suburban subdivision development with over 200 houses which would be a success by a factor of 6 because more households are finding homes to live in. Whether or not people want “urban living” or “suburban living” is a debate that is pointless – people want both. Some people want to live in the city and I find no reason to deny those individuals that choice. Some people want to live in the ‘burbs and again, I find no reason to deny those indivdiuals that choice. No matter what your choice is, you should expect to pay for it – those who choose to live in the city shouldn’t get some special tax break “just because”. If I want to maintain a yard for my son to play in, I shouldn’t have the City of Portland or Metro telling me “NO!”.
It certainly does not help that TriMet does not invest in bus stop improvements that could easily increase property values and the desire for businesses to locate/improve near existing bus stops. For those seniors living in that new development in Hillsdale, their transit access is a signed bus stop in the middle of a busy commercial district that is “walkable”. TriMet should be building out that bus stop to be a “bus station” with enhanced, oversize shelters, transit tracker displays, garbage cans, benches, and landscaping. There is absolutely, positively ZERO reason why TriMet can’t do that.
Mark Mullins Says: JK and his compatriots don’t mention other cities like Seattle, L.A., the Bay Area, San Diego, Sacramento, D.C., suburban New York City, Miami, etc.–where sprawl has historically been unregulated and home prices are much higher than in Portland.
And they don’t mention cities like Las Vegas, Phoenix, Orlando, and Denver–where sprawl has been unregulated and home prices are close to Portland’s.
JK: Wrong! Most West coast cities have tighter land restrictions than Oregon. The claim otherwise is just a planner lie to cover up their screwups. Here is what a New York Times column had to say about it:
By: Paul Krugman
Now for the economic geography. Last summer I suggested that when discussing housing, we should think of America as two countries, Flatland and the Zoned Zone.
In Flatland, there’s plenty of room to build houses, so house prices mainly reflect the cost of construction. As a result, Flatland is pretty much immune to housing bubbles. And in Flatland, houses have, if anything, become easier to afford since 2000 because of falling interest rates.
In the Zoned Zone, by contrast, buildable lots are scarce, and house prices mainly reflect the price of these lots rather than the cost of construction. As a result, house prices in the Zoned Zone are much less tied down by economic fundamentals than prices in Flatland.
By my rough estimate, slightly under 30 percent of Americans live in the Zoned Zone, which comprises most of the Northeast Corridor, coastal Florida, much of the West Coast and a few other locations.
Read the rest at: krugblog.wordpress.com/favorite-columns/
Mark Mullins Says: This is one reason why the Debunking Cato article rings much truer than Cato’s Debunking Portland site. The latter focuses on a few anecdotal situations, while the Debunking Cato takes a broader view and is honest about the benefits AND the drawbacks of Portland’s system.
JK: Better re-read that Cato article – it is correct and the debunkers are wromg. (Planners have to lie to us, otherwise the whole region would rebel against their manipulations and their proven false excuses to shovel billion$ to developers and light rail hucksters.)
Thanks
JK
Erik Halstead Says: TriMet should be building out that bus stop to be a “bus station” with enhanced, oversize shelters, transit tracker displays, garbage cans, benches, and landscaping. There is absolutely, positively ZERO reason why TriMet can’t do that.
JK: I suspect that Trimet really can’t do that – it would cost money and they have spent it all on toy trains.
Thanks
JK
Bob and Lenny,
So you both have no knowledge or familiarity with the millions poured into TOD’s and other smart growth developement? Either in direct cash subsidies, waved fees, low interest loans, various business/etc., grants, and various property tax abatements?
I guess if you both don’t know anything about these subsidies there’s not much reason to talk about it.
You can’t expect someone to take you through the whole thing and bring you up to speed.
News Seasons sited there explicitly because of MAX?
Oh brother is that rich.
Lenny how do you know who gets subsidies and who doesn’t?
I would like to know your source?
Interstate would have been much better off without light rail sucking up $70 million from property taxes in the 3744 acre Urban Renewal District. UR which spends countless millions spurring the development you falsly claim MAX “drives”.
It aint MAX that drives any of it. It’s the money for property owners and developers.
Obviously that MAX money would have “driven” more development that the MAX itself.
Interstate was a low rent disrtrict before. So what?
It’s not too much of a success for the low rent citizenry.
John –
Your criticism about subsidies was specifically in the context of this development.
You said:
So I ask you again, since you seem quite confident about this and because the articles weren’t specific, what subsidies did this development receive?
The Airport MAX line was a shining example of a TOD failure
The planners were stupid to ever consider such a development in the first place. Like who wants to live next to a noisy airport? Deaf people? Well I can’t imagine it being much worse than my old place on 7th with the constant sound of sirens and groups of 20+ skateboarders in the parking garage at night. In Salem they’re trying to develop this supposed eco development called Pringle Creek and it’s RIGHT next to the airport. I imagine a similar flop in this dumb plan, too.
Housing was never proposed at Cascade Station. And it was Bechtel, not city planners, who planned the site (and paid for the Airport MAX line in exchange for the development rights of that site).
News Seasons sited there explicitly because of MAX?
Well, that’s what they said. Maybe they were lying.
You can’t expect someone to take you through the whole thing and bring you up to speed.
Well yes, they can. That’s kind of the point of persuading people – you have to “bring them up to speed.” Sometimes you may find they already know more about it than you.
I would like to know your source?
Public subsidies are public knowledge. Lenny has served on the Interstate Urban Renewal advisory committee that makes recommendations to the city on how some of those subsidies are allocated.
There is absolutely, positively ZERO reason why TriMet can’t do that.
At least if you discount that it costs money as a reason. Trimet is focusing on improving amenities on frequent service routes which include over half the bus riders in the system. I believe that includes the 54 and 56 which you said that stop serves. Do you know what the plans are for those routes?
JK says: Most West coast cities have tighter land restrictions than Oregon.
You heard it here first, folks!
“News Seasons sited there explicitly because of MAX?
Well, that’s what they said. Maybe they were lying.”
>>>> Or maybe they said that so that they could get their parking lot put in front of the store, not in the back. In order words, they might have been playing the planners.
Bob R. Says: JK says: Most West coast cities have tighter land restrictions than Oregon.
You heard it here first, folks!
JK: You didn’t know that!!!! Well they do.
I am constantly amazed by your lack of knowledge of the real world. I guess that’s a requirement to believe all that Portland Progressive crap.
Thanks
JK
You didn’t know that!!!! Well they do.
I am constantly amazed at your ability to argue by assertion, and then back up those arguments by repeating the same assertion.
I’m just glad the land restrictions aren’t as bad in Salem as in the Portland morass. Here you can still actually get around in a car without encountering gridlock all the time. I noticed even going on a grocery shopping trip that the store wasn’t nearly as crowded as I use to see in Beaverton and Portland and there was ample parking all around. I wonder if anyone has done any studies how the wasted time in commute (be it in a car sitting on the freeway or riding on the 2MPH snail rails) has hindered the Portland area economy? I bet the loss is staggering…..
I truly don’t understand what is “progressive” about expecting everyone to live in cement structures, line the beautiful Willamette river banks with concrete and in-fill, let the sewer dump right in it (and not remedy the problem for decades on end, only doing so after a federal mandate), and polluting the air even more with cars going nowhere and hindering the movement of goods and people because its so congested. Add to that they’ve driven out all the large employers to the point that now the top 5 employers in Portland are governmental entities (state, federal, city, county and OHSU). What is progressive about that? Is it any wonder people are flocking to Vancouver in droves?
Bob R. Says:
You didn’t know that!!!! Well they do.
I am constantly amazed at your ability to argue by assertion, and then back up those arguments by repeating the same assertion.
JK: I didn’t argue by assertion – I provided a quote from a blazing liberal New York Times columnist. You are just ignoring reality again.
Thanks
JK
Hey, Portland, you’re slipping ….. #10 “greenest city”. Maybe next year #100. It’s like how Forbes in 2002 said Portland was #1 place to live now what is it #580?
I didn’t argue by assertion – I provided a quote from a blazing liberal New York Times columnist.
I read the entire Krugman article. Nowhere does it say that most west coast cities have tighter land restrictions than Oregon. The words “Oregon” or “Portland” did not appear once in the article.
Let me remind you that you posted your quote about Oregon in direct response to Mark Mullins who said this:
You then immediately replied:
So, please show how the west coast cities mentioned by Mark, to whom you were directly replying, have stricter land use requirements than Portland, which would explain why they have higher prices than Portland.
For year’s now we’ve heard a constant barrage of criticisms that Portland is some kind of poster-child for draconian land use restrictions and government interference. Now you’re telling us that there’s plenty of other places which are more strict. That’s news.
– Bob R.
Greg Tomkins in Salem,
Remember when you promised to do something other that sit around all day bashing Portland on this blog? Something about starting oregontransport.com? How’s that coming?
I don’t bash Portland. There are some good things too (and I mentioned I love biking there). I just think y’all need to try harder to live according to the principles you aspire toward.
Jim Karlock is accusing someone else of ignoring reality and being clueless about the real world.
I think that pretty much defines “irony.”
And Greg: we’ve been here before. You keep spouting complete nonsense like “they’ve driven out all the large employers to the point that now the top 5 employers in Portland are governmental entities” with no factual support whatsoever. Can you provide ANY case of a “large employer” being “driven out” of the Portland Metro area? Sure, Columbia Sportswear left Portland — they relocated to Beaverton, a couple miles outside Portland city limits, and still employ lots of Portlanders. But what large employer ever was “driven out”?
They keep chasing away company HEADQUARTERS would be more appropriate thing to say.
http://portland.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2007/10/22/story3.html?page=1
According to same article, Oregon is #34 in business friendliness. I wonder how business friendly Portland itself is?
Greg, you’re doing it again. The article largely focuses on Tektronix, which was recently purchased by a large east-coast company. That wasn’t Tektronix picking up and moving because they didn’t like it here, it was a simple case of corporate mergers/acquisitions. Happens all the time.
Can you give us examples of a few company headquarters which left the Portland metro area because they were, as you said, “chased away”? Hmmm?
Here ya go Bobby:
http://nottheoregoniannews.blogspot.com/2007/07/business-climate-costs-portland-another.html
and another one:
http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2007/07/16/daily38.html
Al, neither of those articles listed a company that left the Portland metro area. One listed the results of a survey but listed no companies whatsoever, and the other was about a company moving to Canby, which is still within the metro area last time I checked.
Clearly the Canby company and the survey respondents attribute negative factors to the City of Portland, which is something worth considering, but there’s still no evidence that companies are being “chased away” in droves, which is what Greg has asserted numerous times over the years.
– Bob R.
oh bob bob bob,
Whatever will I do with you?
c-ya manana!
My parents used to own a building on Grand back in the early 90’s but they grew frustrated at the sea of taxes and overregulation by the overzealous city and county governments up there.
As for examples of companies that were once headquartered in Portland and are no longer….
North Pacific Group moved to Lincoln Center near Washington Square.
U.S. Bank moved its headquarters to Minnesota. After its last employees are vacated from the tower and their rent is up, it will no longer be called U.S. Bank Tower but whomever its new owner is.
Fred Meyer, another Oregon mainstay got swallowed up by another company called Kroger and lost its HQ in Portland.
PacifiCorp used to be headquartered in Portland before it was made into a Berkshire Hathaway sudsidiary and its HQ relocated to Iowa.
Freightliner is in the process of being chased out of town.
I’m sure there are many others but those are the ones I know of for sure.
As for examples of companies that were once headquartered in Portland and are no longer…
We asked for examples of “chased”, but you again provide something different:
North Pacific
Still in the Metro area.
U.S. Bank
Corporate merger.
Fred Meyer
Corporate merger.
PacifiCorp
Corporate merger.
Freightliner is in the process of being chased out of town.
Which policy in particular is chasing them out of town, and how would you change that policy?
Which policy in particular is chasing them out of town, and how would you change that policy?
I don’t know. Oregon California and Washington don’t seem to have this problem, though. And it seems these new cottage industries our governor is coddling so much are only here because of massive incentives. They should be incentivising all companies the same way, not just solar manufacturers and others appeasing the green crowd. But on the other hand I think its great that we will be known as trendsetters in this regard and I have even invested my own money in green, ethanol and biodiesel companies because I think they are the future.
I don’t know. Oregon California and Washington don’t seem to have this problem, though.
Neither does Portland. There’s no “problem” here with companies leaving town. The only “problem” is that Portland’s pro-business environment is good enough that home-grown companies do well, and then much bigger out-of-state companies buy them out.
The last company I remember that actually pulled up stakes and left the area was Georgia Pacific, which (IIRC) was mostly-Atlanta based already, and was simply consolidating its operations in Georgia.
As far as I know, Portland has not had a situation like Seattle did in 2001, when Boeing moved its corporate headquarters to Chicago.
“about expecting everyone to live in cement structures, line the beautiful Willamette river banks with concrete”
Portland was originally developed as a port… The reason that they lined the river with cement is because that was a lot better than what the river was like before they lined it with cement:
http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?c=27928&a=24731
The reason the river in Salem isn’t lined with cement has a lot to do with a waterfall in Oregon City that makes it hard to get ships that far upriver…
Uh, Greg, PacifiCorp is still headquartered in Portland.
The reason the river in Salem isn’t lined with cement has a lot to do with a waterfall in Oregon City that makes it hard to get ships that far upriver…
Reference:
https://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/op/wfl/home.asp
No, a PANAMAX ship will not make it to Salem – but since Portland is trying to be all “European” I spent a month in an inland German community that had an active shipping port based solely on small riverboats.
No, I was not in Venice. (I was northwest of Hamburg.)
Hi Matthew!
(way off topic response)
Wow, thanks for the link to the old photos archive on portlandonline.com. I’m a big local history nut, especially Portland and Oregon City history where my family hails from. They used to ship fruit and other agricultural goods from O.C. and Portland to markets in S.F. and L.A. back in the day (late 1800’s to early 1900s) before the city “encroached” on their farm off what is now Bolton in West Linn and they sold the original Donation Land Claim, created the Bolton Land Company sold subdivisions and moved South to Dayton where we’ve been for 5 generations.
Ross,
Public subsidies are public information but they sure aren’t public knowledge.
I guarantee that Lenny serving on the Interstate Urban Renewal advisory committee didn’t give him any access to any list of subsidies in the district. The proof of that is no such list will ever be got, provided, reported or appear here.
Lenny has never even seen a North Interstate URD accounting of money spent either.
Just as with SoWa Urban Renewal District no such accounting is provided or available.
As far as Freightliner and policies drivig them out?
Maybe it’s the State trying to stiff them for $210 million.
http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN2839221920070629
aybe it’s the State trying to stiff them for $210 million
They’re probably chomping at the bit to drive all the industry on Swan Island out so they can build more condos and pearl district style development out there, too!
If the Overlook Condos got anything like the Belmont Dairy then they got millions in loans, grants and tax credits. But Lenny is on record here claiming they got no subsisides.
BELMONT DAIRY – CASE STUDY
PROJECT COST: $14 million
FINANCING: Construction Period Financing:
Bank of America – $4.6 million
Permanent Financing:
Network for Oregon Affordable Housing – $4.6 million
Construction/Permanent (Public) Financing:
City of Portland Livable City Housing Council Loan – $600,000
Portland Development Commission Loan through
Community Development Block Grant Loan Program – $750,000
State of Oregon Transit-Oriented Development (CMAQ-TOD) Loan – $300,000
Low-Income Housing Tax Credits/Related Financing:
FNMA Tax Credit Investment – $8.3 million
City of Portland Multifamily Housing Tax Credit Bonds (Bridge Loan) – $7.2 million
.6 million
If the Overlook Condos got anything like the Belmont Dairy then they got millions in loans
So you don’t actually know. Thanks for finally admitting that.
The Belmont Dairy isn’t on a MAX line, so all you’ve done is provide evidence that subsidies for affordable housing aren’t necessarily tied to MAX projects.
John,
Regarding the Belmont Dairy, what exactly is your point? As someone who has lived in the neighborhood before that project and since, I would say that it was a critical project in terms of turning the rest of the area around.
Are you saying that there should never be that kind of investment? That it is wrong? That it is good?
From my personal perspective, that project was a launching pad for a ton of other projects that have helped make Sunnyside a really popular neighborhood (for people with kids, too).
Maybe it’s the State trying to stiff them for $210 million.
“Stiff them” implies the state is unwilling to pay something that the state owes. From reading the article, it seems rather that the state thinks that the state is entitled to a percentage of punitive damages in a settlement in a lawsuit that Freightliner, along with Daimler-Chrysler, lost.
They’re probably chomping at the bit to drive all the industry on Swan Island out so they can build more condos and pearl district style development out there, too!
Got any evidence of that? I’m sure Lenny would like to hear it if you do. Don’t hold back.
Bob,
If the condos and “livable” developments are so wonderful, then why not let natural market forces decide whether they are sustainable or not? Why do they need any subsidy whatsoever? It’s because they are unnatural and the local governments are trying to force a style on the populace they would otherwise not choose for themselves (remember government knows best, espcially Metro and PDC).
If the condos and “livable” developments are so wonderful, then why not let natural market forces decide whether they are sustainable or not?
Currently, the market rate for many multi-story condo developments is much higher per square foot than suburban detached single-family homes. There is a demand of these kinds of units. (Although in the near future I suspect real estate demand will fall off considerably market-wide.)
The subsidies given are often couple with or intended to provide affordable options for those not earning incomes capable of buying at the higher market-demanded rates.
Whether you think that’s a good thing or not, the fact of the matter is that close-in high-rise housing has been a hot market the past decade, and the subsidies are intended to help keep that market from pushing lower-income groups out of the city.
Just look at some of the organizations that “John” mentioned in his list of subsidies, most of which are in the form of low-rate loans, not direct payments:
– Bob R.
So then why not subsidize everyone who wants to live somewhere “desirable”? Why does it have to be in a concrete highrise in the middle of the city? Maybe they should subsidize people who want to live in the country, too! I think its discrimination.
“Maybe they should subsidize people who want to live in the country, too!”
Cities have tried that, (actually, the real reason didn’t have to do with “wanting to live in the country,” it had to do with NIMBYs that didn’t want public housing in their neighborhood, but the results are the same,) and it tends to cause more problems than it solves. Specifically, the families have to own 2 cars to get to work and childcare and shopping and the like, (cause they can’t get public transit, and there isn’t anything near them,) and so the subsidy of the housing gets eaten up by car ownership costs, and the low income people that are being subsidized have more money problems than they did before they got the subsidy…
So then why not subsidize everyone who wants to live somewhere “desirable”?
I think that is part of what Metro has done in trying to require affordable housing throughout the region. Without subsidies, there would be many people who worked in expensive communities who could not afford to live there.
In Marin County, across the Golden Gate Bridge from San Francisco, fireman, police, teachers etc simply can’t find affordable housing in the community. Not to mention retail employees etc. Partially as a result they have enormous congestion problems as well as employers who have given up an moved out because they can’t keep pay their employees enough to live anywhere near their job.
This is actually one of the reasons a lot of small businesses in Washington County were very supportive of MAX. They hoped that it would improve access to affordable housing for their low income workers. They had enormous turn over problems because people who lived on the east side of Portland would take the job but quit as soon as they found a job closer to home.
Having a mixture of housing in a community benefits everyone. Which is why the public subsidizes some units in a lot of developments, especially near transit.
So now we have shifted the conversation to the legitimacy of the subsidies?
I thought we were talking about giving MAX the credit for the development?
Back to the post, without the subsidies the bulk of TOD development would not happen.
With or without MAX or streetcars.
Yet MAX is given credit for spurring development and all sort of things it has not provided.
Certainly not congestion reduction or affordablde housing or access to affordable housing.
Ross leaping back (without any source)into the theoretical world of MAX benefits in Washington County is classic.
He obvioulsy doesn’t live, work or do business in Washington County.
If he did he would know how lame the heavily subsidized MAX/TOD Beaverton Round is while a half mile away, down the street at Beaverton Town Center shopping center is always a bussling activity of many things the public enjoys.
I’ll wager The Overlook did get subsidies as they are so plentiful, why would they not?
From the $20,000 store front grants to tax credits to tax abatements to many direct payment, subsidies are the linchpins not transit.
re Freightliner: it is moving about 10% of its corporate staff to Charlotte (with its new lightrail line). These are Sales & Marketing folks whom management whats to be closer to where most of their customers and suppliers are…east of the Mississippi River.
The developers of The Overlook should be acknowledged…they live in the community and have created some affordable workforce housing in a pretty pricey neighborhood with little help from PDC, Metro TOD or TriMet. The project will have a cafe/market on the first floor…something long needed in this stretch of Interstate.
PS the problem with the project in Hillsdale is that is virtually impossible to safely cross the B-H Highway at that point, access to transit is poor and Wild Oats market just closed.
they sure aren’t public knowledge.
he would know how lame the heavily subsidized MAX/TOD Beaverton Round is while a half mile away, down the street at Beaverton Town Center shopping center is always a bussling activity of many things the public enjoys.
Beaverton Town Center was much more heavily subsidized than the Round.
“They’re probably chomping at the bit to drive all the industry on Swan Island out so they can build more condos and pearl district style development out there, too!”
Who are “they” exactly? The City is engaged in a multi-year river planning process, and while some changes to the zoning map are likely, not one inch of Swan Island will allow residential development.
“John” wrote: So now we have shifted the conversation to the legitimacy of the subsidies?
No, you have, when you couldn’t support your assertions about the original development mentioned in the main post.
They really should turn goalpost-moving into a legitimate sport. How much do those things weigh, anyhow?
– Bob R.
Who are “they” exactly?
The Portland power elite
Well then “they” aren’t paying attention, because “they” are making absolutely no effort to change Swan Island from industrial use. Or maybe your premise is just fundamentally flawed.
This thread is about whether MAX spurs development. It doesn’t. The 100s of millions in borrowed Urban Renewal subsidies does.
Just like Belmont Dairy where there is no MAX.
All of the new or re-development along Interstate will be an outcome of tremendous public spending. I’m not even addressing the validity of all that spending right now essentially none of it would happen if only MAX were and no other tax money was available.
So the phony credit given to MAX is just that, phoney.
And as Milwaukie gears up to get their MAX, tax payers will see new Urban Renewal plans and spending to do what MAX does not.
Lenny, what do you call “little help from PDC, Metro TOD or TriMet” The Overlook got?
You first said the Overlook got no subsidy now you say they got little subsidy.
I’ll venture to guess they got 80% of the development planning costs paid by PDC’s DOS program, low interest loans were had, some fees waved and when the project is complete some form of tax abatement will show up on the the assessors record.
Too bad there isn’t a one stop link for viewing State/PDC/Metro/TriMet subsidies.
How convenient that the full public cost is so buried and inaccessible.
So much so that members of Urban Renewal Citizen Advisory groups never see the costs either.
Who are “they” exactly?
The Portland power elite
Well, that sure clears things up.
It seems like the Streetcar has been handmaiden (I don’t know if “spurring” is accurate) to much more development for the buck than MAX. They’re still planning tall buildings over there in the Pearl. The next big MAX project–to Milwaukie– has some very dubious potential, IMO. Much of the route is parkland or consumed by just getting over the Willamette. There are also established neighborhoods of single family homes. The area south of Tacoma Street already has plans for mixed use–not high density residential development. Plus, there is a big switching yard–still needed for our freight rail providers.
That leaves some scattered pockets that conceivably could be redeveloped. But that is contingent upon developers willing to take the risk. And since these are close to downtown is a MAX the appropriate system for that purpose? The Milwaukie MAX is also slated for a new bridge, adding to the expense. Why not, instead, give the South Waterfront its own bridge? Link Hwy 99 and Holgate Bv. to SW Macadam over Ross Island and provide some entrances and exits to I-5 at the western approach.
Beaverton Town Center was much more heavily subsidized than the Round.
Let’s see some hard numbers as to the public subsidy of Beaverton Town Center vs. The Round at Beaverton Central.
Clock is ticking, Ross.
“Much of the route is parkland or consumed by just getting over the Willamette[…]That leaves some scattered pockets that conceivably could be redeveloped.”
You’ve been told this before, but I’ll say it again: The scattered pockets are where the stations will be. The stations will not be in the middle of the parkland or the Willamette, and given that most people have to get on the light rail lines at stations, those areas won’t get developed.
Before Matthew and Ron get into a battle here, I’d like to point out that there can be linear-style development in a corridor, especially when the stops are not too far apart … Interstate Ave. is an example of what I’m talking about, and then there can be nodal development around station areas. Westside MAX is more of this character, and I suspect the Milwaukie line will resemble Westside more than it will Interstate.
– Bob R.
“I’ll venture to guess” blah blah blah
But you don’t know. To quote the late great Lionel Hutz, “We have plenty of heresay and conjecture…those are KINDS of evidence.”
I agree. Why let a silly thing like facts get in the way of unsubstantiated speculation?
Much of the route is parkland or consumed by just getting over the Willamette.
You keep repeating this over and over. But the fact is development happens where there are stations, not where there is track. If you put a station every other block, as you do with street car, you do get more development opportunities. And if downtown is any example, you can also almost walk as fast as the transit will take you.
The point of MAX is to be a regional transit system. Its not designed to move people just a few blocks at a time, even if that is the way it works in downtown Portland. It is designed to allow people to take buses to get to Milwaukie and then use MAX to get to their destination relatively quickly. Development is spurred around those MAX stations because they now have direct access to the regional transit network rather than just a local bus (or streetcar) connection.
Let’s see some hard numbers as to the public subsidy of Beaverton Town Center vs. The Round at Beaverton Central.
Hard numbers!? I thought this discussion was entirely based on speculation and unsupported assertions. Where are the hard numbers on any public subsidy for Overlook? We all know that “they” are hiding the real subsidies from us. What makes you think “they” aren’t hiding the subsidies for Beaverton Town Center too …
“I thought this discussion was entirely based on speculation and unsupported assertions.”
No, no, that was the Amtrak thread. This one is based on conspiracy theories about how the “Portland power elite” is secretly doing this behind everyone’s backs.
This one is based on conspiracy theories about how the “Portland power elite” is secretly doing this behind everyone’s backs.
Ah, my mistake.
Just so that it is clear, I was making a point. I not only lack hard numbers for subsidies for Beaverton Town Square, but am completely unaware of any direct public subsidy. I frankly don’t care enough to try to find out if there was one. The Round has been a fiasco, but I think largely because of poor decisions by its private developers.
I worked for an attorney representing one of the subcontractors early in The Round’s development. What I got out of it was there was a 150% cost overrun (that’s 2.5 x projected costs) in the very early stages of development, because site preparation turned out to be way costlier than expected. The initial investors got cold feet and pulled out, and the whole project wound up frozen for a few years.
I don’t know if the early overruns had anything to do with the design of the project, or just problems specific to the site that would have plagued ANY project being built there.
I think the major problem with The Round is that it’s simply too small: it’s a few buildings, not a neighborhood. It’s surrounded by heavy traffic and plenty of large parking lots. The area isn’t pedestrian friendly, and there really isn’t much to DO there.
Create dense housing over retail and good pedestrian-oriented streets for several blocks in every direction, with apartment complexes and condos lining the edges of the development, and watch the place take off.
The Round has been a fiasco because the Smart Growth/TOD plan sucks and it doesn’t work any more than the Cascade Station plan did.
But The Round is getting millions more poured into it by Metro and Beaverton.
Like all other MAX stations. Gresham Station, now 20 years in the making is still getting millions poured into it.
Millions here, millions there, while bus service flounders, infrastructure falls further into disrepare and excuses fly.
Don’t look too close though, just blame the developers and toss out bogus claims of Beaverton Town Center being subsidized.
The only thing MAX drives is more schemes and spending on “Smart Growth” development.
oops
further into disrepair
“Like all other MAX stations. Gresham Station, now 20 years in the making is still getting millions poured into it.
Millions here, millions there, while bus service flounders, infrastructure falls further into disrepare and excuses fly.”
GOOD POINT JOHN!
bogus claims of Beaverton Town Center being subsidized.
How do you know they are bogus? You have repeatedly claimed projects were subsidized with no evidence. There almost certainly were public funds spent to support the Town Square development. If you are claiming there weren’t, prove it.
There almost certainly were public funds spent to support the Town Square development. If you are claiming there weren’t, prove it.
Preceding comment by SAME poster:
Just so that it is clear, I was making a point. I not only lack hard numbers for subsidies for Beaverton Town Square, but am completely unaware of any direct public subsidy. I frankly don’t care enough to try to find out if there was one.
The point of subsidies CANNOT be proven for Beaverton Town Square BUT it can be proven for other developments tied to the MAX line.
Unless you want to take the sick and twisted argument that “well there are roads and traffic signals to Beaverton Town Square and the parking lot is tied to the sewer system…” In that case, you MUST apply the same principles in “subsidies” towards MAX related projects.
And I fully expect an accounting of the “subsidy” provided by electric ratepayers of Portland General Electric and Pacific Power & Light in the increase of electric rates they must pay to cover the reduced rates provided to TriMet, as well as the cost bourne by Columbia Gorge landowners and users for the costs/impacts from the Boardman Coal Plant for electrical output to generate electricity for TriMet as well. I also expect an accounting of the security costs bourne by agencies other than TriMet (i.e. Hillsboro, Beaverton, Portland and Gresham Police and the Washington County Sheriff’s OFfice) that TriMet does not reimburse the agencies for. I also expect an accounting for the subsidy given to TriMet for TriMet’s lack of paying road user fees by its vehicle fleet for MAX related purposes. And the costs of MAX park-and-ride lots too.