An article in yesterday’s Trib about the Central Eastside urban renewal district quoted Sam Adams saying that additional funds were needed to lock in affordable housing in the face of the gentrification that would be created by the Streetcar and other improvements. This was part of his justification for increasing the maximum indebtedness of the district beyond the amount recommended by an advisory committee.
So today’s question is whether it is possible to do high qualify (e.g., rail) transit investments without triggering gentrification that drives out current residents?
23 responses to “Streetcar and Gentrification”
So is there any reading material on any studies/analysis on how much exactly the city/society has to actually pay to keep low cost housing available?
I definately like the idea of low cost housing MUCH better then ghettos/housing being built by the actual city (Like in New Orleans, Washington DC, etc) as it stays much nicer. Being vested interest by the owners is maintained even “low cost” housing retains value so it is kept up. Government housing on the other hand is usually turned into slums because no one, even the residents have a vested interest in it.
So anyway… any ideas on reading material?
So today’s question is whether it is possible to do high qualify (e.g., rail) transit investments without triggering gentrification that drives out current residents?
Chris –
I don’t think so. Improved neighborhoods are more expensive. For the most transient residents who move regularly and live in rental units, including children moving out on their own for the first time, it just isn’t possible to provide affordable housing.
On the other hand. If the city invests in preserving stable affordable housing for existing residents, it can preserve the neighborhood character. That can assure that many longtime residents of the neighborhood get the benefits of the improvements in addition to those who gentrify it.
What happened with Interstate MAX was that the MAX project ate up all the resources that should have gone into housing at the start. So if you are going to preserve affordable housing, it needs to be first in line for funding. Once you have spent the money on transit improvements it will be too late.
Frankly the use of urban renewal money for transit is highly questionable. The transit projects usually benefit the region as a whole while draining money for the urban renewal district that should go to pay for the related investments needed to make it work, like affordable housing.
I still say if it is going to Gentrify, it’s gonna happen. It’s basically a requirement to make “upscale rail” transit work. The whole of the country with such transit used to be such. If affordable housing goes away then so be it. Generally speaking with Gentrification you also chase out crime, drugs, and other high cost high problem issues. So really, in the end you WANT Gentrification.
At the end of the day though city officials, transit planners, and all the rest must ask themselves, how much of it is sustainable.
For instance in Portland it is suggested often that a high number of the people living downtown are in positions and jobs in other cities such as San Fran, Seattle, etc. They live here because they like it. As the market fluctuates these people lose their ability to continue in such a way. Thus the base that creates the Gentrification will and does dry up quickly. So how much more Gentrification is sustainable for the Portland Urban/Metro area? Should the transit mechanisms (Streetcar, MAX) be oriented toward creating this environment that is highly volatile or should it move toward strenghtening the basic infrastructure and capabilities of the system and the areas that currently NEED transit.
These are some hard questions, and they are questions that are and should be looked at but seem to be overlooked on an all too common basis.
——————————————–
Imagine for a moment the economy receeded again. Portland with it’s Socialist policies can pretty much be garaunteed a 8+% unemployment again, with significantly less tax revenue. Now imagine a small event occurs, which is somewhat unlikely but still a very possible scenario.
Portland with 8%+ unemployment loses Intel. With the way Intel has been getting hit lately and other changes in the market, one of the first locations that would be intelligent to get rid of is the Portland Campuses. At least a large number of them if they get anexed.
So Portland with 8%+ unemployment and one of, if not THE highest tax paying (via income taxes) employers leaves.
What happens to all of the transit? What happens to the school budgets then? What happens to the high earners that do live downtown/west hills? What happens when several thousand in Hillsboro/Beaverton area lose employment? Do they leave? Do they straggle on with unemployment? For how long? 6 months, a year? What happens to all of the money going into “subsidized/low cost housing”?
These gentrified areas will probably be one of the first and hardest hit. The affordable housing will break some developers, possibly bankrupt certain city departments that are responsible. The poor will just stay poor. The city would be broke, and the taxes would continue to prevent replacements coming into the market area.
These scenarios, which aren’t far out possibilities, do NOT seem to be planned for with some of these ideas. If anything I’d hate to say the Streetcar is great but if one where to make “smart” economic decisions, Light Rail would be numero uno on the list, which it is, but limits are being pushed to the extreme with Streetcar Expansion. What happens if development ceases to follow? What happens if a recession hits? Do the cars and tracks just go dormant? Does part of the private sector step in?
Anyway, they’re all legitimate questions that I wonder about with Portland, because they don’t seem oft raised.
Uh, Portland has an Intel campus? Huh? Where’s it at?
I thought all the Intel campuses were in Hillsboro, Beaverton and unincorporated Washington County? Am I missing something here?
I think that Portland does a fairly good job of mitigating gentrification. Sure, more low-interest loans to existing property owners might help, to encourage them to stay put and just upgrade their properties as the neighborhood improves. If you really want to go progressive, some rent control policies would help to keep rent inflation in check… though, I’m not so sure that’s such a hot idea, either. It’s open for debate.
But, I agree with the other posters, that gentrification (that is, the general improvement of a neighborhood, addition of more shops, restaurants & services, higher population density, lower crime) is not in and unto itself such a bad thing. In fact, I wish that some neighborhoods would gentrify faster!
But sure, the loss of close-in affordable housing will change the character of the city a little bit. Will this be a bad thing? …that’s a matter of opinion, not legislation.
But sure, the loss of close-in affordable housing will change the character of the city a little bit. Will this be a bad thing? …that’s a matter of opinion, not legislation.
Using public investment in ways that force people out of the neighborhoods that they have lived in for years is a bad thing. That makes it the responsibility of those who propose those large public investments to also invest in mitigating those effects.
Put another way, is there any reason why people who are being forced out should vote for those who are forcing them out?
When listening to the publicly dialog presented in support of the streetcar, some sort of statement is always made touting the development that occurs along the route, and how that development is directly attributed to the streetcar.
I wholeheartedly disagree with that kind of oratory. A large percentage of the development that has occurred along the streetcar route received taxpayer subsidies from PDC, and/or property tax abatements from the Portland City Council. Without this public financial support and backing, much of this so called streetcar attributed development would not have occurred.
From what I have read here, it looks like the public is now on tap for the price tag of mitigating neighborhood gentrification associated with adding the Eastside Streetcar route.
If a person takes the estimated costs of building the streetcar including the price of the vehicles themselves, and then adds in all the taxpayer development subsidies and property taxes not received for government services and schools due to property tax abatements, and now the money that will be spent to reduce gentrification along with the taxpayer subsidies for streetcar operations: what is the true expenditure for the streetcar?
Furthermore, if the MLK/Grand Avenue route is finalized, there will also be a cost to motorists of added congestion and increased fuel consumption which would be difficult to calculate into any final tally.
Furthermore, if the MLK/Grand Avenue route is finalized, there will also be a cost to motorists of added congestion and increased fuel consumption…
Part of the workplan (an item insisted on by PDOT) for the final design of the Streetcar alignment on MLK/Grand is a transportation management plan to smooth operations for BOTH cars and Streetcars (probably through smarter signalization). Traffic, including freight, should flow more smoothly after Streetcar is implemented.
i think what’s troublesome about improvement-triggered gentrification is that the rise in property values tend to benefit those least in need of the improvements. so contrive to assure that the improvements will, in fact, be needed and not merely added to future residents’ perk portfolio: severely limit parking in proximity to the line, even on private property, by code. no parking garages, no free street spots. phase out all existing curb cuts upon change of tenancy or ownership, especially on properties built originally without parking facilities (pre-1915 or so: bring back the gardens and habitable outbuildings). this will act somewhat as a social filter on demographic changes to the area, assuring that the improvements are well-utilized and fully in keeping with the vision of convivial urban mobility implied by the investment.
Part of the workplan (an item insisted on by PDOT) for the final design of the Streetcar alignment on MLK/Grand is a transportation management plan to smooth operations for BOTH cars and Streetcars (probably through smarter signalization). Traffic, including freight, should flow more smoothly after Streetcar is implemented.
How do we define “smoothly?” Is that “faster?” It certainly wouldn’t be “slower” would it?
Part of the sales pitch, at least to our Hosford-Abernethy Neighborhood Association, was that this streetcar improvement would be providing traffic “calming,” which doesn’t suggest to me “faster.”
Faster, smoother, slower, calmer…can this streetcar really be all things to all people?
As for the issue of gentrification…we seem to have gentrified just fine in Hosford-Abernethy despite the deteriorating Tri-Met bus service (and absent rail, despite all the promises of “someday, someday”.) I have to say I agree with Mr Parker that its a whole lot of other factors then the streetcar that brought about the development of the Pearl.
Frank,
I think the idea is calmer with more throughput. As in the Burnside couplet design, I think the goal would be less stop/rush/stop/rush at stop lights, with a smoother progression at a reasonable speed (and plenty of pedestrian crossing cycles).
plenty of pedestrian crossing cycles…
The biggest problem for pedestrains, Chris, right now, is that cars are turning onto MLK/Grand from so many directions that the flow is nearly constant. I’d love to hear from some ODOT rep that they want to interfere with this, and provide more pedestrian opportunities to cross. I don’t believe it.
I voted with our NA to support the streetcar, but I also don’t think its a cure for cancer, and folks have projected so much onto what it can accomplish…I guess I just think we need to be on top of all these promises, and make sure some of ’em, at least, are realized.
Frank, when the Eastside Streetcar opens on MLK/Grand, if you don’t think the pedestrian (and bicycle) crossing experience is better than it is today, I’ll buy you and Anne dinner at the restaurant of your choice (inside the Portland City limits).
Garlynn…
There are no Intel Campus in the city of Portland, neither are the majority of the taxes that pay for, maintain, and improve the city’s transit system from the City of Portland.
Point being, Intel & the other large Corporations of the area, have more to do with these “standards” – whether transit, income range, or whatever – that Portland seems to take for granted then a lot of people seem to realize. Portland, and especially the city do NOT have as much to do with it as many would seem to think. For instance the state budget is much higher than many states… why? Those Corporations. The city budget is also much higher than some cities… why? Those large Corporations.
…thus the reasons behind my questions. Which seem to go unanswered.
adron –
I know the reason I don’t answer your questions is I don’t understand them. I don’t see how Intel is an issue. In the highly unlikely event that Intel decides to move out of the Portland region, there will be a huge hit to the Portland economy. But that has almost nothing to do with what kind of transportation system we have.
If your argument is that there is a danger in overbuilding expensive central city condos, well yeh. That is the danger of the marketplace. But if the market dries up, developers will find other ways to take advantage of the street car. That is the magic of the marketplace.
But communities are not just about housing, there are businesses and services that are also concentrated in the communities that use them. North and Northeast Portland have a large concentration of social services for low income people. They also have many services that are used by the African American community. Rockwood has a large number of services that are used by the hispanic and eastern european communities.
When you force these communities to move by pricing them out of the housing market, you also place a burden on transportation to move these people longer distances to get to the services they need. In the long run force the services to follow them. That increases the cost of providing the services.
You also reduce access for regional employers to a pool of low wage workers. One reason many businesses locate in the central city and along transit is that they depend on employees with a wide variety of skills and income levels. One of the values of Interstate Max was providing employers with better access to lower wage workers who lived in north and northeast. Employers don’t get that benefit when those people have moved to Lents because they can’t afford to live in north and northeast any more.
“One of the values of Interstate Max was providing employers with better access to lower wage workers who lived in north and northeast.”
What? I used to use the #5 bus, and it provided
better service than the pokey MAX ever will.
But wasn’t the #5 unreliable? While MAX may not be needed to encourage poorer people to take transit instead of a car, a train can give an employer “peace of mind” if they believe that the employee has a more reliable form of transportation.
Nick –
Can you add more detail to your remarks about the “pokey max”? I’ve ridden the old #5 numerous times, and the new Yellow Line completes the same trip for me much faster, and more smoothly and comfortably.
It has also made walking along Interstate Avenue almost pleasant, something the #5 bus did not do.
The only real flaw is that the Yellow Line does not go all the way to Hayden Island, but perhaps that can be rectified in the Columbia Crossing project or as part of some new local connector.
– Bob R.
Frank, when the Eastside Streetcar opens on MLK/Grand, if you don’t think the pedestrian (and bicycle) crossing experience is better than it is today, I’ll buy you and Anne dinner at the restaurant of your choice (inside the Portland City limits).
Chris, I hope you’re right and I lose the bet (yes, this is now a bet) and I have to buy you and yours dinner instead!
The words “traffic calming” keep coming up when discussing the MLK/Grand portion of the Eastside Streetcar alignment. What do such words really mean? A known commodity is more traffic signals. Chris suggests the signals will be timed for a better traffic flow, however timing the signals could also be done today. Both of these streets have heavy traffic, near capacity at times, but neither of them can be viewed as race tracks where a high rate of speed is a factor. Freight traffic will increase on the streets when the overpass is completed and the weight restriction removed at the South end of the couplet. The streetcar’s pace will be pokey at best, potentially stopping every few blocks for passengers, thereby tying up one lane on each street now used by other traffic. That lowers the over all capacity of the streets for existing traffic. Furthermore, with new development on the horizon, it is highly unlikely the streetcar will reduce traffic volumes on the MLK Grand couplet.
Therefore, only one logical conclusion comes to mind. The words “traffic calming” are a disguise for increased congestion that crawls along through the area with increased motor vehicle engine idle times that consume more fuel and potentially increase negative impacts to air quality. Another highly likely factor is that a fair amount of traffic will disperse onto other neighborhood streets due to the increased congestion and reduced motor vehicle capacity on MLK and Grand. Hence, traffic calming equates to more traffic congestion and everything that comes with more congestion.
I appreciate Chris’s explanations of the efforts that will be made to integrate the Streetcar with the traffic environment on MLK and Grand.
It is ironic, however, that a couple of years ago, when Jim Howell was attempting to reduce the scale of the Viaduct replacement project, allowing more pedestrian crossings from the Hosford and Brooklyn neighborhoods, and calming traffic with additional signals, not to mention saving construction costs, both PDOT and ODOT fought tooth and nail for the freeway-like Viaduct replacement project that has recently commenced construction.
While I wish it well, I fear that the East Side streetcar project may suffer from the apparently dualistic view of the role of MLK and Grand that is held by our transportation planning agencies.
Terry –
The signals on MLK and Grand are already timed, and I suspect the timing would not change significantly.
The problem is that there are too few signals and that there is too much space between the signals, sometimes in 6 block stretches. This can mean that a pedestrian would have to walk up to 1200ft out of their way (worst case) to find a safe, signalled crossing, or take a chance crossing 4 lines of traffic.
Long spaces between signals allows for cars to reach a very high rate of speed for short stretches (although most will eventually catch up to the grid timing, a lot of drivers never seem to get this point unless the signals are spaced ever 1 or 2 blocks.)
By increasing the number of signals, the “burst speed” of traffic can be reduced while maintaining the same overall throughput for the corridor and drastically improving the pedestrian environment.
More signals also incidentally (you may actually approve of this) allows bicycles to utilize side streets for east-west travel rather than crowding onto busy arterials. Right now, it is mostly just the busy east-west streets that have signals at MLK and Grand.
One thing I do think we need in the central eastside is more N-S capacity. There is nothing between Grand and 12th to get across I-84. 7th Ave. is under capacity, and a new bridge connecting 7th across I-84 could do a lot to take the strain off of MLK/Grand, especially for central eastside traffic attempting to access the Lloyd District. Why should Lloyd District and Irvington-bound traffic necessarily be tied up with Broadway Bridge and I-5-bound traffic?
– Bob R.
I too appreciated the explanation Chris gave regarding signal timing and did not intend my comments to be taken another way.
Bob,
Your comments make sense too as long as the signals are not every other block like bus stops tend to be. Personally, I have not observed an overly amount of burst speed on the street as you suggest happens. The exception is when vehicles need to change lanes from one side of the street to the other, and traffic being what it is makes it difficult. Sometimes it takes some maneuvering and one reason for my concern about signals being too close together. Of greater concern to me is the streetcar’s pokey pace, potentially stopping every few blocks, and how that will impact congestion on the couplet. Furthermore, I totally agree with your last paragraph and the need for more North –South (vehicle) capacity. That is one of the reasons I still think 6th Avenue would be a better choice for transit.
Terry –
Regarding the speed of the streetcar, and this is probably one of those things that you and I will never agree on as far as merit, here are some scenarios:
1. Where boarding loads are light, and curb extensions are in use for stops regardless of bus or rail, streetcars move at exactly the same speed as bus.
2. Where boarding loads are moderate or heavy, and curb extensions are in use for stops regardless of bus or rail, streetcars move faster than a bus.
3. Regardless of boarding load, if streetcars use curb extensions but buses pull over to the side, streetcars are faster than a bus.
In all 3 scenarios, streetcars are faster. But, as you have so often pointed out, cars may not pass a bus or streetcar stopped at a curb extension (except by changing lanes on multi-lane streets).
You do not think curb extensions are valid under most circumstances, as you have stated, but compared to a bus, the streetcar is not “pokey”. Compared to light rail in dedicated right-of-way, however, the streetcar is indeed “pokey” (sorry Chris!).
– Bob R.