Update: 06 July 2006:
The tour continues – yesterday Portland City Council unanimously approved the locally preferred alternative. But apparently the Milwaukie delegation had visited earlier with their “don’t forget us” message. Commissioner Adams pledged to work to make both projects happen.
Update: 30 June 2006:
The tour of local governments to approve the Eastside Streetcar alignment stopped at the TriMet Board this week. As reported in the O, the focus of this event was a group from Milwaukie that reminded the board that South Corridor Light Rail was an existing priority.
Fair enough. It seems to me the issue is that we have more appetite (and maybe more capital dollars – if we leverage Federal funds effectively) for transit than we have the operating dollars to run. TriMet’s payroll tax only goes so far. Perhaps we need to have a serious conversation in the region about other sources for transit operating dollars?
Original post 6 June 2006:
The effort to get the Streetcar across the Broadway Bridge and down to OMSI got a little closer yesterday as a steering committee of local elected officials unanimously adopted a “locally preferred alternative.”
Over the next month, local governments around the region will review and likely adopt the recommendation:
Mode: Streetcar
Terminus: OMSI, with a first construction phase to Oregon Street (more on this below)
Alignment: Broadway/Weidler, 7th & Grand through the Lloyd District, MLK/Grand through the Central Eastside
This sets up an effort over the next year to assemble the necessary local match to apply to the Feds for 50% of the capital funding. A 20-year local commitment of operating funds will also be a prerequisite to the federal application and may be the hardest part of the work over the next year.
The interim recommendation to Oregon Street (the edge of the Lloyd District) could be amended to go further south by the time the federal application is filed if the City of Portland can get a traffic operations plan for MLK/Grand worked out, along with resolving some other issues, in the next six months or so.
There are still lots of hurdles, including an effort by the House of Representatives to de-fund the program we intend to apply for, and the likelihood that the Federal Transit Administration will write rules for the program that are much more favorable to buses than streetcars, but hey, nobody said it would be easy!
The big breakthrough here is the consensus to use MLK/Grand. At the beginning of the process there was a lot of pressure to use an alignment further east in the Central Eastside, perhaps creating conditions for a wholesale change in land uses there. The local advisory group in the district unanimously supported the MLK/Grand alignment, so that question is behind us.
Update: an article in today’s Tribune makes it clear why the discussion of operating funds for Eastside Streetcar will be a challenge. Rising fuel prices and costs of the I-205/Portland Mall line are putting the squeeze on TriMet’s ability to fund new service (TriMet has traditionally provided 2/3rds of Streetcar’s operating budget).
54 responses to “Eastside Streetcar Gets a Little More Real”
The effort to get the Streetcar across the Broadway Bridge and down to OMSI got a little closer yesterday as a steering committee of local elected officials unanimously adopted a “locally preferred alternative.”
Aha! So we admit this whole “study” exercise was never about seriously looking at “alternatives…” its been about arriving at the Streetcar all along! :-)
And so as we continue, as the Tribune article points out, to push riders OFF over-burdened transit –like my #14 in SE– and cut back service where transit users are actually, uh, using it…we’ll be spending a quarter of a billion dollars to build a Streetcar through an industrial sanctuary with unimproved streets and sidewalks…to accomplish what?
Frank, the study compared Streetcar to a bus alternative and concluded that Streetcar would have higher ridership and do more to foster development. I can’t say I’m surprised by the result, but we do the analysis.
When built out to OMSI (and eventually back across the river), Streetcar would create greater connectivity for folks transferring off your #14 and other eastside bus lines to more quickly reach destinations around the whole central city core.
And having a loop around the central city creates the option in the future to upgrade key routes like Hawthorne, Belmont or Division to Streetcars.
Frank, the study compared Streetcar to a bus alternative
C’mon, Chris. The Study, which I’ve read, compared the proposed Streetcar to a bus “no build” alternative, which meant NO improved bus service. In fact, a “best bus” alternative was specifically EXCLUDED from the study because it “would not have the level of demonstrated economic development impacts.”
The Streetcar isn’t about meeting transportation needs, its about economic development. And after we’ve spent $40,000 upgrading the Hawthorne Bridge for a potential streetcar, instead we’ve got folks abandoning existing and suffering Hawthorne Blvd transit riders in close-in SE in favor of new economic development, that will not even meet the needs of the industrial sanctuary.
Meanwhile, Tri-Met will keep raising fares, cutting service, and packing the buses ever tighter. But we’ll have a “streetcar loop” so the folks in NW can get to the industrial sanctuary in SE, via Lloyd Center? This meets our transportation priorities how?
The option of building our Belmont and Hawthorne, it should be a stated requirement to upgrade Belmont and Hawthorne.
…on to the “study”.
It’s irrelevant what streetcars “functionally” do for a certain area. It’s irrelevant what busses do “functionally”.
What matters is simple, more people will ride streetcars (otherwise they drive and a few are left on the busses). Europe has even proven that people almost always choose rail over busses. Even in Europe the class of people that would ride rail but not busses leaves transit and takes to their cars with $8.00 a gallon pump prices!! People don’t like riding busses – it’s that simple.
In the same turn developers like streetcars but not busses. They like LRT & Commuter Rail but not busses.
So thus it is obvious that this conclusion was reached.
I’m not particularly sure I’m stoked about it, because it could cause some harm, but I bet it does more good than harm. Since they (Guv’ment types) are going to forcefully appropriate my money that I earn from working I’d rather see them bet it on a streetcar alignment over there on the eastside (something I’ll use sometimes) vs. some nasty bus (that I doubtfully will use).
OK, this is just pissing me off! I stopped riding the bus entirely and pay the extra money for gas because I’m sick of Tri-Met’s bull$(#*. I love the idea of mass transit, and I love trains, and have been a fan of Tri-Met my whole life, but the last couple years Tri-Met has done way too much to piss off riders. Their *INSANE* rate increases last year was the last straw for me. Many people who ride the bus are already low-income people who really cannot afford massive rate increases. Others are smart commuters who would rather not clog the roads and find it convenient going to work on a bus or train. If Tri-Met cannot afford to operate with current rates, then they need to either give their board of directors some PAY CUTS (fat chance) or find another source of income, perhaps raising advertising rates.
The A$$H0*@$ at Tri-Met also need to STOP their obsessive overspending on new projects for a while and try at least to fund their existing service. Too many people depend on it for Tri-Met to stop properly funding it.
And why do we need light rail down the bus mall?!? Wasn’t our bus mall awarded several times for its ingenuous design??? Perhaps that was a long time ago but I find the bus mall very convenient and well thought out. They keep saying we need light rail downtown, WE HAVE LIGHTRAIL DOWNTOWN!! What are they thinking? How do we need more? Do we need a train going to every corner of Portland??? Wouldn’t it be nice to have affordable, reliable bus service first? The bus route I used to ride I stopped riding altogether (#47 Hillsboro) because it was so unreliable that buses just wouldn’t show up on a nearly daily basis, and when they’re running every 30 minutes, then every hour, that’s a LOOOONG wait for the next bus. Plus when they did show up, the drivers were jerks because of all the pissed off riders.
Shape up Tri-Met!! What the hell is wrong with you?
Suburban bus route are big money losers with cost per ride on the 47 at well over $5 compared to the 14 at $1.81 and MAX Blue Line at $1.12.
On Swan Island, we lost some 85 runs, but only after TriMet surveyed riders and looked at ridership/run. Low performing ones are gone, but our ridership is up.
Streetcar is a proven product which will, we hope, do for the Lloyd District and Central Eastside what it has done on the west…bring investment in housing, new jobs, etc.
Its also fun and easy to ride.
Contrats Chris.
Streetcar is a proven product which will, we hope, do for the Lloyd District and Central Eastside what it has done on the west…bring investment in housing…
And how much housing would that be? The bridges, according to the report are “at capacity.” The streetcar, at full capacity, can move 552 people each way, per hour, during “peak periods.”
With the streets in the CEID already approaching gridlock, how will incresing housing density in the Central Eastside Industrial District serve the industrial district? How will it facilitate commerce, delivery trucks, and north-south passage through the district by commuters and other drivers?
How will it improve east-west traffic on Hawthorne, Belmont, Stark, Burnside?
Frank,
As one who tries to steer a moderate course in this discussion I can sympathize with your charge that Tri-Mets transporation policies are ignoring the bread-and-butter rider in favor of a new elite customer–the central city rail commuter. I have contended that this agency has been seized by a single minded clique which will ultimately engender evermore costly projects–to remedy the shortsightedness of their goals–and a cycle of rising expenses to the public. But the cost-benefit ratio of urban rail projects can not be evaluated only by disparate or unfair costs and service to various segments of the public. I think we also need to ask how critical urban development goals are being fostered by these strategies–and if it needs a certain amount of subsidization then that is OK. Just as with the tax breaks for high density development, which presently gets a lot of criticism, we will in the long run see more benefits. The high density zones will bring in more property tax revenue in the long run and Portland, as a whole will be better served by attracting people to rail transit.
But it is that point that my agreement would stop. Many of these projects are going way too high in cost. And, in case you were not aware–the Eastside Streetcar is only a small piece of a very costly plan that many are pushing (started during Vera Katz’s term) to rework the East Bank area. So that is where the larger discussion is. Certainly business and property owners in the CEID area would benefit from the strategy to turn this into a new downtown—but how does it benefit the rest of us?
The Streetcar has some potential to remain relatively cost-effective (yes, I know it is still a luxury) if production and design is brought here. And it seems to me that frequency of service can be easily increased. Some of Tri-Mets other projects, I firmly believe, are going to be rejected by voters. I think they need to held accountable for pushing such expensive projects contrary to the voters will.
I can sympathize with your charge that Tri-Mets transporation policies are ignoring the bread-and-butter rider in favor of a new elite customer–the central city rail commuter.
That’s not really my complaint, Ron. I’d love to see the Streetcar going up Hawthorne. I’d love to be a central city rail commuter. I’ve ridden streetcars and rail all over Europe, and I’m a big fan.
My beef is more that the mission of PDOT/TRI-MET has been expanded from serving transportation needs to being a tool for economic development. And not just a useful tool…but yet another one for subsidizing development, to the detriment of existing residents as well as transit users. We have hundreds of miles of unimproved streets in existing neighborhoods, whole neighborhoods without sidewalks…and yet our transportation funding priorities –as well as Parks spending priorities– are in building brand new neighborhoods.
Sure, transportation plays an important role in this new development. But the private sector used to step to the plate to provide it, with streetcars, streets, sidewalks. Now we build the infrastructure largely with public money, and then turn around and provide even more subsidies because the new development is transit-oriented.
In the meantime, bus riders whose need is inelastic –as Tri-Met loves to point out– are more and more burdened with higher fares, cut service, and crowded and uncomfortable rides.
That’s not how to build a transit system that works or draws people out of their cars. There’s also absolutely no roadmap for addressing the existing transportation infrastructure deficiencies in our neighborhoods. So when I hear about how we need the streetcar as a development tool, just as we need the tram, Max through downtown, and all the other big-ticket schemes…I’ve grown pretty weary of it all.
Frank Dufay, you seem to be one of the rare people that seem to understand the history of transit development in the United States.
I am in TOTAL agreement that the model currently being undertaken is eventually going to bit us all in the butt. This expand and subsidize more model will NOT work in the near future. It’s already as we see starting to crumble around the edges. Sure it still seems to be working but someone somewhere better fix the financing schemes of the politicians. If they can’t figure out a more market and demand oriented funding model for transit, there will be two choices, let it crumble – which will be the most likely outcome for politicians because they tend not to let go of things when they should, or they’ll re-intruduce in some way, competition, and actual business community involvement back into the process of RUNNING and not just saying what they might, sort of, kinda want. Technically for almost every Pearl District developer there is now absolutely no vested interest in operating and maintaining the streetcar. In the future it’s not really relevant if it stays or crumbles. The money has been made, the streetcar has been an advertisement and nothing more. From a functional perspective these “partners” need to be VESTED partners instead of just people picking and choosing and voicing some opinions about how the “streetcar” or “light rail” might, sort of, kind of need setup.
But alas, what will we get in the future? I don’t know yet, but someone will find out eventually. Society is starting to finally get to that point where involvement needs to be much more drastic then the superficial levels it has been in the past.
Frank, my take is that Streetcar is great at building dense neighborhoods that people want to live in. That’s the name of the game to hold the UGB and preserve farm and forest land.
And yes, it takes subsidy. While I haven’t run the numbers, my belief is that the level of subsidy is less than the combination of MAX and traditional TOD projects require, and I think the result is better neighborhoods.
It would be great to figure out how to get the market to do this without subsidy. I think we’re getting smarter about this (for the Lowell extension, the LID will pay for almost 50% of the Streetcar construction costs), but it’s a learning curve.
People do gripe about the subsidies of commuter rail–and especially rural citizens tend to feel left out. But I think a consensus formed in this country that some subsidization was worth it–to promote liveable urban areas. After all small cities, which might not have considered such mass transit issues in the ’70’s would eventually get to be mid-sized cities–like us. So some replicable strategy was deemed beneficial. And it isn’t like the US is some leader in this–no matter how much Portlanders may crow. This pattern of urbanization has been taking place in many modern countries, before it became a planning goal in places like Portland. Perhaps most of those foreign cities hadn’t gone so far as to rip up their existing tracks.
But I do think we need to scrutinize the costs–and look for systems that accomplish the task of land conservation without heavy subsidization. I do hope that Streetcar production can be achieved locally so we can figure out how to reduce its cost. That would also make it that much more of an exportable product. Some people may not admit it….but budget crunches are going to be a reality for quite awhile for many communities to deal with.
Frank, my take is that Streetcar is great at building dense neighborhoods that people want to live in.
Chris, while they may or may not be true –the Pearl has not been built for families, but a limited demographic– what has that got to do with using Central Eastside Urban Renewal funds for the Streetcar?
On the one hand we’re saying its important to preserve the inner SE industrial sanctuary and its job base. But building high-density residential in that same district, which you’re saying the streetcar will help accomplish, is a conflicting goal to maintaining the industrial sanctuary. Isn’t it?
Or is the goal now to build high-rises next to the factories and warehouses people work in? In which case, wouldn’t providing sidewalks so people could walk to work be a better –and cheaper– infrastructure investment?
Frank, I don’t see the goals as conflicting. Yes, the EXd zone along MLK/Grand provides the opportunity for mixed use development (which in turn helps fund the Streetcar through the LID and increasing property values to pay off additional indebtedness for the urban renewal district). But by making it clear that Streetcar is NOT the impetus to change any zoning, we’re respecting the industrial sanctuary and providing high-quality transit within a few blocks of those jobs. My hope is that in doing so Streetcar creates a denser employment environment.
And if you look at the conditions that were approved in the work program that goes along with the LPA (i.e., things that have to be figured out before we apply for the federal funds), the pedestrian environment, especially on MLK, is a critical factor. So we should get those sidewalks as a result.
Zoning notwithstanding, the employment mix in the Central Eastside will continue to shift from industrial/warehouse to office/creative…note the two new firms moving into the Hoffmann building for example. Once South Waterfront is built out, CEID will be the last close in place for redevelopment…and it will happen.
On another note, the suggestion was made at the Streetcar CAC to look for ways to link up Streetcar with MAX on the eastside. The approved MLK/Grand alignment should be built to MAX standards; only relatively short segments would be required to link the Blue/Red line on Holladay at the north end and the proposed Milwaukie line on the south end. This would allow routing MAX via the eastside either in emergency situations or as a regular service option. The Yellow Line could go from Vancouver to Milwaukee either via the Mall or via MLK/Grand.
A lot of people ride express buses in preference
to subways in New York, and pay premium fares to
boot. However, the type of coaches used are
excursion/suburban type buses.
The transit motorbus really needs a top to bottom redesign after 60 years; there is no reason why a Trimet bus has to ride like a tank.
As for money issues, Trimet is operating too many
marginal services; even though I am a heavy user
of Trimet, I’m still not entitled to have a bus
line within a 1/4 mile of my house.
The thing I don’t understand is why they are talking about all this new Service to OMSI when the 83-OMSI route was cancelled a little while back due to low ridership (then 83-Park Blocks, which looped through a small area of Downtown, was cancelled alltogether).
In December 2004 at a Brooklyn Neighborhood Assoc. Meeting, I asked someone with Metro who was doing a presentation about I-205 MAX – who also brought up the Eastside Streetcar – why there was all this talk about this service. The reply was that this is a different mode of transportation.
Now, they also claim that putting the Streetcar on MLK/Grand will “calm” the traffic (this was in the “inPortland” Section of The O in May, IIRC). I doubt it; it’ll probably just mean that the auto traffic will split itself up on side streets that aren’t designed for it.
As for all this talk of “economic grotwh,” I think we have two excellent “success” stories in the Portland Area:
1. “The Round” at Beaverton Central (It sat there unfinished for how many years? And, it ended up with a huge multi-level parking structure anyway.)
2. CascadeStation – nothing but a closed MAX stop and some streets to nowhere since 2001! (I remember the Tribune ran a story on CascadeStation, questioning about if it would really work – it was published in the 9-11-01 Edition.)
Lenny, I completely agree with you on the Eastside N/S MAX routing option – that way, they wouldn’t have to tear up Downtown. My guess is all of us that are sitting in front of our computers discussing the issue aren’t the ones that will ever be listened to – unless we do something to change it.
The distinction between serving OMSI with the #83 and serving it on a Streetcar circulator loop is like the distinction between a pair of walkie-talkies and the Internet. The 83 was essentially a point-to-point route. A circulator will allow trips from many central city origins to many central city destinations. OMSI isn’t the reason to build Eastside Streetcar, it’s just the last destination on that side of the river before we figure out how to cross back over.
As to development potential, MAX is located first and foremost to provide a (mostly commuter-oriented) transportation system. The zoning follows. Streetcar has been planned to serve areas that have zoning and patterns of unutilized FAR (floor area ratio) potential that can grow buildings that in turn will provide riders for Streetcar. It’s a process of building dense neighborhoods that people want to live and work in (and serving existing vibrant areas like NW Portland and PSU at the same time).
And a study of how to use Streetcar tracks on MLK/Grand for potential MAX service is a required part of the work plan for further developing the concept. As is a traffic management plan (not a traffic calmning plan). The idea is to make cars, freight AND Streetcar work better in the corridor through better signalization and other tools.
Lenny said: “On another note, the suggestion was made at the Streetcar CAC to look for ways to link up Streetcar with MAX on the eastside. The approved MLK/Grand alignment should be built to MAX standards; only relatively short segments would be required to link the Blue/Red line on Holladay at the north end and the proposed Milwaukie line on the south end. This would allow routing MAX via the eastside either in emergency situations or as a regular service option. The Yellow Line could go from Vancouver to Milwaukee either via the Mall or via MLK/Grand.”
This is great news, because it will allow the most flexibility for operations…most of the system could still work and interconnect, even if for whatever reason MAX served had to be suspended across the river. Or, if ridership patterns happened to change significantly in their spatial distribution…
Chris said: “And a study of how to use Streetcar tracks on MLK/Grand for potential MAX service is a required part of the work plan for further developing the concept.”
Hopefully, it will materialize… though, how is the Hawthorne Bridge being treated at this point?
Nick said: “A lot of people ride express buses in preference to subways in New York, and pay premium fares to boot. However, the type of coaches used are excursion/suburban type buses.”
Different topic, but Nick, you bring up a very good point. Tri-Met doesn’t currently use Over-The-Road coaches (excursion/suburban, as you say — like Grayhounds), but it might be worthwhile for them to consider adding some, especially as a way to feed service further out, but also to provide inter-suburb long-distance connectivity. I could see these coaches being a great way to add frequent connections between outlying suburban job centers and the Metro-designated regional centers. But, they could just as easily provide service to Hood River, Mt Hood, the coast, Astoria, McMinnville, or other places that could feed hourly service into or within the Portland region. Tri-Met might have to partner with other agencies to receive license to operate routes outside its current jurisdiction, however, if it was the operator for those.
Anyways, food for thought.
cheers,
~Garlynn
…they could just as easily provide service to Hood River, Mt Hood, the coast, Astoria, McMinnville, or other places that could feed hourly service into or within the Portland region. Tri-Met might have to partner with other agencies to receive license to operate routes outside its current jurisdiction, however, if it was the operator for those.
TriMet must be reimbursed for any route that runs outside of its service/taxation area. That’s why #35 stopped running to Canby a year after CAT started up – CAT (essentially the City of Canby) had to reimburse TriMet for the operating costs. When the agreement was up at the end of that year, it wasn’t renewed, so #35 now only goes to Oregon City TC.
I’m not sure if #96 runs outside of TriMet’s service area, but #6 in and out of Vancouver does.
So, in order to have TriMet itself provide service to places like McMinnville, Astoria, etc., it would have to be paid by each jurisdiction it passes through. As I mentioned in the now-locked thread about the Yamhill Co. Wine Train (sorry again for going off-topic there), other agencies more or less serve the cities mentioned.
Not sure why the comment form on the Wine Train post went away, I’ve rebuilt the page and restored it.
Perhaps we need to have a serious conversation in the region about other sources for transit operating dollars?
Absolutely, Chris. How about we start the conversation this way:
Since the Eastside Streetcar is about economic development –and not about serving the residents of the eastside– why not have the developers pay for it? And not with future tax increment financing dollars, or phony local improvement districts, but, really, actually PAY for the improvements that benefit their development?
No…too radical!? Instead we give them tax breaks for building near “transit oriented development” (which means we who want better transit where we live end up subsidizing fancy new transit developments for new residents, while continually suffering with atrocious transit service of our own).
Frank, developers WILL PAY, in fact have always paid, for a portion of the capital costs of Streetcar through a local improvement district.
The question here is not about capital, it’s about operating funds. On the west side, the formula is 2/3 from TriMet and 1/3 from City parking meter revenues, with a very small contribution from farebox since the line is mostly in fareless square.
On the east side, TriMet is staking out the position that they can’t pay as much as 2/3rds. While farebox will be more significant, it’s not going to close that gap. So the question is what new sources can we look at? If you’re suggesting developers, how do we capture ongoing revenue from capital projects?
Frank, developers WILL PAY, in fact have always paid, for a portion of the capital costs of Streetcar through a local improvement district.
Dozens of non-profits and businesses that don’t benefit from the streetcar helped pay for it through the Local Improvement District in the Pearl and downtown. In the meantime, Homer Williams got to cancel the Streetcar assessments on all his condos in the Pearl…and switch them to a vacant piece of land? That’s a developer paying for the infrastructure his development benefits from?
All the original developers in the Pearl could walk away from their condos when sold…but the City and Tri-Met are left paying for the streetcar that can’t possibly pay for itself out of the farebox? What a deal, huh?
Frank, it’s correct that condos that were owner-occuppied at the time the LID was assessed were exempt. I’m not sure Council will allow that exemption in the future, they almost didn’t for the Transit Mall LID.
But, I’m still waiting to hear ideas for how to generate revenue for operations. We need new ideas.
“But, I’m still waiting to hear ideas for how to generate revenue for operations. We need new ideas.”
a) Get rid of fareless sqaure.
b) Buy articulated buses, like Seattle’s, for
heavily travelled lines. They are more labor-
efficient and might attract more riders if
overcrowding can be alleviated.
c) Stop running marginal services; e.g. like
#59-Walker Road on weekends, where I was the
only passenger on the bus from Sunset TC to
Schendel (just past 158th Avenue).
d) Get money from the Federal govt to pave the
West Hills tunnel for dual operation with hybrid
vehicles (also like Seattle), providing direct
service to downtown for more residents of
Washington County for increased ridership and
revenue.
Nick –
I believe Chris’s call for revenue ideas were specifically for the new proposed eastside streetcar. Although eliminating fareless square would boost farebox revenue on the existing route, it would not make much difference for the proposed new route.
Regarding articulated buses, these have been tried in Portland in the past and do not work well in the transit mall. The 200ft blocks allow 2 standard 40′ buses to queue neatly at each of the 2 stops per block with room to maneuver in and out. Articulateds mess up the pattern. The same will be true with the new single-stop 4-bus queue of the new mall operations plan, after light rail opens.
However, I do think there is room for articulateds in the future. The addition of a continuous auto lane along the left side of mall streets, as is part of the current plan, creates an opportunity to shift to transit use in future decades if demand warrants.
Eugene, OR is building a dedicated busway which will use new hybrid articulated buses with boarding doors on _both_ sides of the bus. Such vehicles allow for operations with boarding from the left.
If transit use continues to grow, mall capacity can be supplemented by operating left boarding buses in what is now the continuous auto lane, without disrupting the existing mall transit service with construction. Or, low-impact construction could conceivably add a 2nd track to the mall for shared streetcar and bus use in the left lane.
– Bob R.
Here’s an interesting article that talks about how funding for the highways are in danger. (I know it’s not directly related to the streetcar).
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2006/06/27/defense-highways/
Frank, it’s correct that condos that were owner-occuppied at the time the LID was assessed were exempt…
I’m not talking about owner-occupied condo exemptions, Chris. I’m talking about Homer Williams’ condos –owned by him— that were assessed by Council after a public hearing. And then re-assessed a few weeks later to zero, with all those assessments moved to a vacant lot. Not one of Homer Williams’ condos was assessed for the streetcar, though, obviously they benefitted from the streetcar.
Frank, I’m certain you are much better informed about the transaction than I am. However, didn’t Hoyt Street Properties (Homer) pay a negotiated contribution to the LID?
Chris,
I am a big fan of keeping Portland’s downtown an area for shopping and for living, but paint me as another skeptic of the streetcar. I live in the SE and share his concerns about unpaved streets and transit development that seems targeted a very specific demographic (one which, not surprisingly, I am not part of). Along with mass transit, I think we HAVE to consider how we efficiently move cars around town, something that seems far, far down on the ladder.
I’m not sure I believe the development potential since I’ve seen many claims that the development was sparked as much by the tax incentives as by the streetcar itself.
The streetcar is cute, but is it really going to be used by commuters? Shouldn’t we wait until we see what happens in SoWa before we create another expensive line?
I do support lines like the Lake Oswego extension, however, that takes advantage of existing track and (so I recall) was much cheaper on a per-mile basis.
didn’t Hoyt Street Properties (Homer) pay a negotiated contribution to the LID?
Chris, ALL of Hoyt streets existing streetcar assessments were transferred from the condos to a vacant property…which Homer now is asking for a greater FAR (floor to area ration) for, or he’ll walk without developing it.
The point, though, is that the condos in the Pearl controlled by Homer’s various corporate entities do NOT include the cost of the streetcar, which is poor economics. (Of course the condos owned by OTHER developers do…giving Homers’ a competitive advantage.)
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not bashing Homer…he just took advantage of what was so generously put on his plate. (Well, every City Council member who voted for this did get political contributions from him.) But what the city allowed here was wrong, unethical, anti-market, and Tri-Met and the City are left holding the bag…for a stretcar’s operating expenses that the rest of us transit riders will be subsidizing. While our transit needs go unmet. As you’ve now heard…Tri-Met can’t pay the operating costs for more than ONE new project for the next 8 or 10 years. So Homer got the Pearl –and South Waterfront’s streetcar extension– and the rest of us can ride, I mean eat cake.
Frank, again, you’re mixing capital and operating. Accepting for the moment that Homer got a sweatheart deal on the capital side, I’m still looking for a proposal on how we should fund operating that is different from the current 1/3 City (from parking meter revenues) and 2/3 TriMet?
Paul, with regard to development patterns driven by Streetcar, I’d refer you to Streetcar’s Development Report (PDF, 7M). On the 2nd page you’ll find an overview of the results of a study by local economist Eric Hovee who finds a much greater percentage of FAR utilization adjacent to the Streetcar contrasted with the rest of the central city. I believe the tax incentives you mention are applicable on a relatively uniform basis throughout the central city.
The current Eastside Streetcar plan may be a flashy way to transport people, but it lacks “vision”, totally misses an “opportunity” to bring a new environment to the eastside of Portland, and demonstrates a complete lack of regard for stakeholder motorists who pay the majority of taxes that fund and subsidize transportation projects.
One of the major problems with the Eastside Streetcar plan is the locally preferred route. Starting with the Broadway Bridge, it appears as if the primary objective of the route designers has been to obstruct other traffic rather than to provide an efficient method to move people. The biggest route problem is the choice to wedge in the streetcar line on MLK and Grand Avenue. Both streets already operate at near capacity various times of the day. Every time a streetcar stops for passengers, it will act as an obstruction to the flow of traffic. Such obstructions only create more congestion, require motorists to consume more fuel and have a negative affect on air quality that adds to global warming. Not only will other traffic and the environment be negatively impacted with the MLK/Grand Avenue alignment, but the streetcar is likely encounter service delays too. Furthermore, the experience of riding the streetcar on such a traffic intensive street and a state identified highway offers little incentive to attract passengers or pedestrian activity.
Instead of focusing on the two most heavily traveled streets on the lower eastside, MLK and Grand Avenue, and using a club approach that has negative impacts, another more favorable “opportunity” exists. If the “vision” is to create a truly pedestrian oriented streetscape with transit alternatives, the route chosen should be on an underdeveloped business oriented street that currently has light volumes of traffic. The street that best qualifies for this “vision” is 6th Avenue. Because 6th Avenue lies between two major vehicle corridors, MLK/Grand and 7th Avenue, and because 6th Avenue is basically an underdeveloped small business street that also has various rental housing alternatives, 6th Avenue offers the greatest potential for a transit corridor for the close in eastside. The “vision” would include a makeover of 6th Avenue to look more like a mall with street trees, sidewalk furniture and ornamental street lighting. Transit options would be two-way going both North and South. Auto traffic on 6th Avenue would be limited to local access. Street parking for cars would be optional depending on the block. Like 5th and 6th Avenues downtown, 6th Avenue on the eastside would be known as the transit street. Unlike the frenzied pulse on MLK and Grand Avenue, the tempo on 6th Avenue would be leisurely where people would want to congregate. Furthermore, 6th Avenue could be reconstructed to accommodate any transit mode option including the Eastside Streetcar and/or an Eastside Max Connector, plus trolley bus and/or regular bus service. Revamping 6th Avenue into a transit mall like street offers a greater “opportunity” for diversified development than do other options.
A “vision” coupled with “opportunity” should make 6th Avenue the top candidate for an Eastside Transit Corridor, and a far better choice than creating more negative impacts than positive ones on MLK and Grand Avenue. It is time to think outside the box. 6th Avenue is the carrot approach and should be fully explored and studied in the Eastside Transit Alternatives Analysis. Selecting 6th Avenue as the preferred route choice for transit benefits all modes of travel on the eastside, and that is what any project should do.
Terry, Streetcar’s impact on auto and freight traffic is very similar to that of a bus (particularly on multi-lane streets).
The challenge on Broadway/Weidler and MLK/Grand will not be to keep Streetcar from impacting traffic congestion, but to keep traffic congestion from impacting the Streetcar.
6th and 7th were discussed as potential routes for Streetcar in a prior phase of the project study, and were rejected by the district because it would require radical changes to the industrial portions of the district.
Just an aside, but why wasn’t the streetcar
designed and built as a “heritage trolley,”
like Memphis and Tampa, instead of the sterile
looking thing we have now?
Something like the double-truck Birneys in Tampa
with historic looking stations would have added
immeasurably to the character of the city and
would have been a big draw. IMHO, Portland blew
it big time here.
Nick, that was a fundamental choice very early in the development of the concept for the system. “Vintage” systems are generally not ADA-compatible and have lower vehicle capacities. The stake was put in the ground for a modern transportation system.
We’re already shoulder-to-shoulder with 8,000 riders per week day. How much bigger a draw could we have?
Chris,
If the eastside streetcar is built, what are the expectations for changes in the CEID in terms of commercial, residential and industrial development?
Personally, I would like to see some residential/mixed-use development near the water/freeway and on MLK/Grand. In addition, I would like to see additional industrial development in the form of mid-rises for creative industrial and a focus on preserving light industrial. I’m not sure how this fits into the city’s vision, but funding issues could be addressed more accurately if we all had an idea of what ther city is actually aiming for in the area.
What will the CEID look like in 10 years if the streetcar & development happen as expected?
Nathan, I think the question of what will the CEID look like in the future is very much an undecided question. The trick for Streetcar was to be compatible with the competing visions.
By staying in the MLK/Grand corridor, Streetcar has lots of development potential (including housing) in the EXd zoned blocks immediately adjacent to MLK/Grand. If you look at the FAR (floor area ratio) potential in that corridor, it is way under-built compared to the zoning.
Once the future of the CEID is clearer (maybe after the next update the Central City Plan?) then Streetcar should be in a good position to support whatever is going to happen outside the immediate MLK/Grand corridor.
I’m sympathetic to Terry’s arguments, although I don’t believe the streetcar will congest MLK or Grand any more than equivalent bus service.
The biggest choke point right now, as far as transit/auto congestion is concerned, is the bus stop at Grand/Burnside.
This stop features one of the much-maligned curb extensions, but is so heavily used that the curb extension is entirely justified to hold all the waiting passengers, and I’m reasonably sure that the convenience store does not want to lose any of its parking lot, so I don’t know how this could be reconfigured to prevent congestion. A streetcar pulling into this stop wouldn’t be any different than a bus.
That being said, I think Terry is right about 6th being a great street for an alignment. Just how much opposition was there to rezoning along 6th?
Personally, I think a bidirectional alignment on 6th (double tracked), with a jog over to 7th at I-84, and then a new multi-modal 7th Ave bridge across I-84, would make for a faster, calmer streetcar experience as well as connecting better with the Lloyd District, and the bridge would establish a great new connection to the commercial Lloyd district without forcing auto traffic onto Oregon/MLK/Grand.
In the Lloyd District, 7th is a nice street with potential for much more development, and the MAX station at 7th/Holladay would make a good streetcar transfer point, especially if that streetcar continued in a mostly straight line.
Although, for a bidirectional alignment, at some point traffic signal timing becomes an issue that would have to be worked out carefully.
– Bob R.
Chris,
You stated: “The challenge on Broadway/Weidler and MLK/Grand will not be to keep Streetcar from impacting traffic congestion, but to keep traffic congestion from impacting the Streetcar.”
If this is the policy of the streetcar concept, then it should be stated in the EIS that one of the primary purposes of the developing a streetcar system is to create more congestion which then will cause motorists to consume more fuel thereby having a negative affect on air quality. Given the City’s policy to find ways to reduce fuel consumption, any policy must recognize the need to make streets flow better for motorists too, and not just transit.
Furthermore, it should be noted that additional freight and semi-truck traffic will be using the MLK/Grand couplet in the very near future. Once the replacement overpass near OMSI is completed and the weight restrictions removed, Union Pacific will be making better utilization and constructing upgrades at Brooklyn Yards to handle increased rail-truck transfer traffic. This additional freight truck traffic will then be competing for street space with the traffic that already exists and the streetcar.
Terry, the workplan accompanying the LPA (the workplan is also being adopted by all the local governments) calls for a traffic management plan that will improve movement of all modes (cars, freight, Streetcar).
So the solution to making sure auto congestion does not slow down streetcar is to figure out how to operate the streets more efficiently to reduce congestion (probably mostly with signal timing).
BTW – There will probably not be an EIS for this project. The Federal Transit Administration will need to rule, but the likely ruling is either a categorical exclusion (because we’re already in a heavily built-out urban area) or an Environmental Assessment, which is a less onerous process than an Environmental Impact Statement.
Terry makes a good point about the state of MLK/Grand. I disagree with the importance on moving cars quickly through, but as it is that is a horribly hostile pedestrian environment. There are too many lanes with cars going too fast. Unless something drastic is done, this will be a bad place to put a streetcar line. I am optimistic that the city will not make such a mistake, but there are a few things that need to happen first (or at the same time).
The curb-to-curb distance needs to be narrowed. The cars need to be slowed. (One way streets make cars go faster than bi-directional streets, so I would suggest removing the couplet). Sidewalks need to be widened, street parking needs to be continuous, street trees and furniture need to be added and uniform, etc.
Moving the streetcar to 6th won’t do a lot to help ridership since people will still have to cross MLK/Grand one block to the west, so access to the industrial area will seem cut off from the streetcar. I agree that at this point in time 6th is a nicer place to have the streetcar and would be a nice main street, but MLK/Grand is really (will be) the heart of the neighborhood and will have the highest intensity of use, which is really what the streetcar is supposed to serve.
By the way, the same goes for Broadway/Weidler…
Isaac –
Setting aside for a moment what traffic levels and speeds on MLK/Grand would be appropriate, I want to address your comment about couplets.
Rather than eliminating couplets, another way to calm the street by limiting stop speeds is to add more signals at more intersections. When there are many blocks between signals, there is little disincentive for speeding.
However, when there is a grid-synchronized signal every block or two, a speeding car will always “catch up” to a red light.
For example, there is relatively little speeding in the downtown Portland grid, because nearly every intersection is signalized.
Such improvements would help the Broadway couplet, and would considerably improve the MLK/Grand couplet. In addition to calming traffic (without drastically affecting law-abiding motorists), signals create more pedestrian crossings. The addition of these crossings would also mitigate the problem of making a pedestrian connection between a streetcar stop on 6th and a destination in the industrial area.
– Bob R.
Rather than eliminating couplets, another way to calm the street by limiting stop speeds is to add more signals at more intersections.
I think this is a necessity whether there is a streetcar or not. Couplets can in some ways makes it easier to get across the street, traffic is only coming from one direction and there are breaks when lights change. But with the slip ramps on Morrison and Hawthorne, traffic really never breaks and, as Isaac notes, you have much higher speeds and people don’t really expect to have to stop for pedestrians. Eliminating the slip lanes on Morrison and Hawthorne would also help.
Frank, again, you’re mixing capital and operating. Accepting for the moment that Homer got a sweatheart deal on the capital side, I’m still looking for a proposal on how we should fund operating that is different from the current 1/3 City (from parking meter revenues) and 2/3 TriMet?
I’m not mixing capital and operating at all, Chris. I’m suggesting that those who benefit from infrastructure improvements pay for those improvements. Why should parking meter revenues subsidize the streetcar?
When I buy a car, I know I also have to pay for its maintenance, insurance…and gasoline. I don’t assume someone else will pay those expenses for me. We need to turn the paradigm on its head…OK, you get a Transit-Oriented-Development reduction in your System Development Charges. But then you also, in turn, help pay for that transit. Not allow developers to walk away from that responsibility the way we do now.
Frank, you still haven’t said how the beneficiaries should pay. An SDC is a one-time fee. How would you collect fees for operations on an ongoing basis? What’s your proposed mechanism?
Why should parking meter revenues subsidize the streetcar?
The answer to that is straightforward. When you put in Streetcar in a district, ALL the activity in the district increases, including parking and parking meter revenue. The revenue increases are greater than the amount that is contributed to Streetcar operations.
Frank, you still haven’t said how the beneficiaries should pay. An SDC is a one-time fee. How would you collect fees for operations on an ongoing basis? What’s your proposed mechanism?
One model could be the way we pay for sewers. Let’s say you’re in a location that gets a reduced Transportation SDC because its Transit-Oriented-Development. Fair enough…but then, for example, you help shoulder the operating costs by paying a special Transit-Oriented-Development District fee (just as someone in a parking zone district pays a fee each year for their parking sticker).
There’s lots of ways to be creative, but the overarching principal should be that people that financially benefit from building new transit infrastructure need to step to the plate to help pay for its maintenance. The idea that there’s endless free money to subsidize development isn’t tenable anymore, especially when existing neighborhoods are told there’s not enough money to pay for basic services like street maintenance, sidewalks, or striping crosswalks.
Frank says “… the overarching principal should be that people that financially benefit from building new transit infrastructure need to step to the plate to help pay for its maintenance. The idea that there’s endless free money to subsidize development isn’t tenable anymore… ”
I would agree with the latter part of that statement, mostly. Money certainly is going to be tight, and these transit projects should be planned out with a goal of controlling the subsidization. Part of the way that is done is by providing an attractive mode, so that people who otherwise would shun mass transit are lured to it. Still, the high density development on the table is going to bring more tax revenue into the local governments. There are so many more units being built, and in a higher price range, than most Portlanders would have conceived of five years ago. True, Mr. Williams may get the last laugh, but in the long run I think we will see enough revenue added to what was or could have been that it is worth it.
So, how do you pinpoint who is benefiting or will benefit from a mass transit system? Pretty hard to measure definitively….and it will change over the course of time. Having said that I think the voters will axe projects that are outlandishly or inordinately expensive, if given the chance. I am intrigued by the possibility that Eastside SC will not meet federal guidelines. According to the O’s article, length of the route is a major concern to Washington. Would extending that line to Milwaukie as I have suggested tip the balance favorably?
The length of the route is not the main issue. The comment derives from the fact that the highest ridership benefit occurs if we complete the full loop. Each successively shorter possible initial construction segment (Oregon St., Morrison St. or OMSI) has less potential ridership, and is more expensive on a per-rider basis. That’s inherent in the nature of networks. The more nodes in the network the more connectivity the network provides. The relationship is non-linear.
The big challenge with the Federal Transit Administration is that the rules they are writing to implement the Small Starts program use the same metrics they apply to light rail projects. It’s all about how many passengers you move and how quickly. This will strongly favor bus projects. The metrics the FTA is using include no benefits for land use changes.
So part of the region’s challenge over the next year as we prepare our funding application will be to make our case very strongly about the land use benefits and push hard to get the FTA to include this in the evaluation.
It’s all about how many passengers you move and how quickly. This will strongly favor bus projects. The metrics the FTA is using include no benefits for land use changes.
This gets back to the function of building transportation infrastructure. Is it to move people…or change land use patterns, and spur economic development. If the latter, then those of us already in heavily developed areas will never get the transit improvements we need, since we wouldn’t rank high for that metric.
And money isn’t just “tight.” We’re unable, at this point, to maintain the existing transportation infrastruture we already have, which is why we’re behind on street repairs, building sidewalks, painting crosswalks. We can’t aford to buy the land we need to complete the 40-mile loop. When Tri-Met tells me they can’t afford the operating costs for the East Side streetcar and another project for probably the next decade…don’t we need to evaluate it in that light?
If buses will move more people than the streetcar, then why promote a mode that has less people using mass transit? The proposed 5,000 new residents in the SE industrial sanctuary will not be coming without their cars…and where are the jobs, and how do they get there, when we’re told the bridges are already “at capacity?”
How about a surcharge –not an SDC discount–on every new condo built in this area to fund an escrow account for ongoing maintenance of whatever new transportation infrastructure is needed?
Frank, the irony is that Streetcar WILL move more people than buses, the study clearly demonstrates that. What the FTA formula misses is that part of the mechanism that works for Streetcar is to create the dense land uses that drive ridership (and help curtail sprawl at the edges of the UGB). Buses simply don’t trigger development the same way.
But what I think we can probably agree on is that transportation operations are underfunded. So we need to find new mechanism that is both fair and efficient. Council tried that a few years ago with a street fee tacked on to water bills, but the business community vetoed it. Maybe if businesses in the CEID and Milwaukie got behind an idea like that it would go somewhere?