Hawthorne Streetcar Advocacy Website – Official Launch


In a number of recent discussions here on PortlandTransport, the idea of streetcar service for the Hawthorne Blvd. corridor has been bandied about. At one time I threatened to build a web site to allow for interested parties to organize around this idea. Now, it is time to make good on that threat. :-)

Hawthorne Streetcar Advocacy Web Site

I am pleased to announce that the HawthorneStreetcar.org site is now online.

I invite and encourage anyone interesting in pursuing the idea of a Hawthorne Streetcar to join up, create a basic profile, and help get the discussion rolling.

At this point the idea is to form a group, discuss ideas, and come up with a grass-roots approach. (The site is an informal effort and is not initiated by the city or the current streetcar organization.)

The site already has a few articles and proposals, but more details will be formulated as the group grows and a consensus emerges.

I have sent email invitations to all of the neighborhood associations which may be affected by a future proposal, as well as other stakeholder organizations.

Thanks to all who encouraged this idea and thanks in advance to those who participate!

– Bob R.


18 responses to “Hawthorne Streetcar Advocacy Website – Official Launch”

  1. Awesome…

    I’m just sorry I’m about to begin a training class and can’t dig in right away!

    Thanks for setting this up Bob!!

    Frank

  2. Why streetcar rather than cutting headways on the bus line? I like the idea of frequent kneeling biodiesel/hybrid buses LOTS better than a streetcar on Hawthorne.

    If you put a streetcar on Hawthorne, that will be the camel’s nose in the tent for high rise condo towers all the way up Mt Tabor. I would vote NO on that.

  3. Charles Hales gave a talk at PSU about the streetcar a few days ago and said that for the streetcar to pencil out along Hawthorne the buildings lining the street would have to be rebuilt as 4-6 story mixed use apartment buildings.

  4. Hi Brilliant –

    Why streetcar rather than cutting headways on the bus line?

    At peak times, the headways are very short. Once you hit a minimum headway in heavy traffic, such as occurs along Hawthorne, buses tend to bunch, eliminating much of the benefit of frequent headways.

    At that point, a higher-capacity vehicle does more for you than throwing more vehicles at the problem. But, articulated buses are inappropriate for Hawthorne.

    The lanes are very narrow (9.5′) and today’s standard 40′ buses already weave and cross lane markings and disrupt traffic in the left lanes, sometimes even opposing traffic as cars are “forced” by buses to cross the center line. Articulated buses are less maneuverable and the trailer sections would exacerbate this problem.

    The advantage of a streetcar is that it is a narrower but longer vehicle than a bus, and the rails clearly demarcate where the trains will be, and the trains will never swerve. Some folks criticize fixed-rail transit as being “inflexible” and in some ways this is a valid point, but in tight spaces where you are mixing a number of modes (pedestrians, parked cars and drivers, bikes, transit, autos, delivery trucks, etc.), having one mode operate predictably and reliably can improve the prospects for the other modes as well.

    If you put a streetcar on Hawthorne, that will be the camel’s nose in the tent for high rise condo towers all the way up Mt Tabor.

    I do not believe this to be an obvious conclusion, however mid-rise development has occurred on Mt. Tabor in the 1930’s-50’s, such as the multi-story apartments and senior centers at 60th and Belmont.

    But as far as a Hawthorne Streetcar is concerned, I seriously doubt that it would go beyond 50th, as this where the #14 bus currently turns south. The grades are too steep to get up onto Mt. Tabor — the furthest a streetcar could go would be 54th, which is the historic alignment of the original streetcar.

    Thanks for your comments,
    Bob R.

  5. Charles Hales gave a talk at PSU about the streetcar a few days ago and said that for the streetcar to pencil out along Hawthorne the buildings lining the street would have to be rebuilt as 4-6 story mixed use apartment buildings.

    A number of the older structures along Hawthorne are 4+ story residential buildings. This kind of development is an important part of the history of that area. While I don’t think that such developments are suitable for every situation, allowing them shouldn’t be excluded out-of-hand.

    – Bob R.

  6. I’m all for a Hawthorne Streetcar but I think it has to go far enough that the 14 bus can be cut and not have to provide duplicate/competing service.

    Also a minor point but I think these streetcars will need a different seating arrangement since this would no longer be a circulator.

    And maybe the inner portion of Hawthorne can be made two-way again and remove the one way couplet near Grand Ave.

  7. Hales’s point on larger structures is probably a presumption that the route would need TIF funding. For one thing I think we are out of urban renewal designations to use. (The city is limited to 15% of the area being in a URA at once and we are very close to the limit now.) So using TIF or a URA is unlikely. That makes funding this a challenge – it would need to be a LID or citywide GO bonds.

  8. I’m going to dig into the site.

    I must say my complaint, if resolved with this effort (the ridiculous expense of the current Streetcar) would serve Hawthorne perfectly.

    Hawthorne doesn’t need an overly expensive Skoda car system. Run some smaller (imagine the current cars without the articulation, use some of the same parts and we’re set for low expenses and maintenance) cars at higher frequencies than the busses. Have pull offs for the stops and run then otherwise in traffic consuming ONE lane of traffic instead of eating up 2 as is normal with the busses.

    It could be done for half the mileage costs of the current alignments for Streetcar. Get the guyz & galz of the NOLA, Little Rock, Memphis, Texas, Philly, and other alignments to roll in here and show us Portlanders how to do in on the low cost budget. Then charge a basic Tri-met fare and the blasted things would MORE than pay for themselves.

    It’s THAT simple. Market choice would prove already this could work. We just need to get the right players together.

    …Bob R. and others I will be contacting you in regards to this. I’d be very glad to banter ideas about and possibly to re-approach this with the individual that in the past wanted to run a “private” streetcar in Portland again.

  9. So using TIF or a URA is unlikely. That makes funding this a challenge – it would need to be a LID or citywide GO bonds.

    A Hawthorne Streetcar alignment is ALREADY in an Urban Renewal Area…the Central Eastside Industrial District, where TIF funds are already contemplated for a streetcar. We just need this alignment that serves actual transit riders, not just developers. The East Side loop proposal is, well, loopy…this Hawthorne alignment actually has some utility. (Just don’t tell Chris I said so.)

    Not that developers along the Hawthorne route wouldn’t benefit, as we see upzoning to CS bringing us more four story, mixed use, development appropriate to the area. That development is already happening…we’ve just failed, to date, to provide the necessary transportation infrastructure to support it.

    If I were to drive my car the way Tri-Met drivers are forced to drive their buses on Hawthorne, I would be ticketed for reckless driving. Having buses on streets they don’t fit on makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and is a danger to cars (and pedestrians trying to cross the street).

    I would imagine, too, that Tri-Met would be far more interested in using their operating revenues to support a streetcar alignment that actually serves their customers better –and saves them money– over an alignment that is simply a tool for new development.

  10. TIF could help a portion – but I am not more than the first 12 blocks. Plus Central Eastside TIF dollars are going to another streetcar proposal…

    That’s not a done deal yet, by any stretch of the imagination.

    Besides, what’s wrong with funding just a part of the route, and some of the most important part in terms of “spurring development”? You’ve got the largest undeveloped lots in the whole CEID sitting next to a Hawthorne alignment…ODOTs property that’s been sitting there doing nothing but leaving the area looking abandoned, and creating no property taxes to support the district.

    Riding the streetcar out to Gibbs today, do you realize how much of that route is already built out? (And how much of it that isn’t developed isn’t accessible to the streetcar?)

  11. I posted this on Sam’s blog:

    From a Sam Adams staffer I can hear the sour blogging voices harping about the cost and that everyone could just be riding buses up and down that hill for a lot less money. I tend to think there are a lot of us who resist change…

    My wife and I took the ride with our 10:15 tickets, and, you’re right, it’s an amazing view (though I’m less of a fan of “bumps” when I’m high off the ground).

    Your notion, though –and I heard it twice on the news tonight– that “the benefits of the tram will long outlive and outweigh the costs,” well… not really. Not when I and my fellow “resist change” bus riders down on the ground continue to pay far more than tram (and streetcar) riders for our annual passes…and are continued to be denied passage on the tram with our bus transfers. Even as our employers pay Tri-Met payroll taxes, while the docs up on the hill don’t.

    We’ve now built a two-tiered transit system, with some of the nicest rides –the streetcar and the tram– offered pretty much for free, while for this bus rider my $3.40 round trip fare won’t even get me on the tram without paying an extra $4.00. (Not that my $3.40 fare buys me a seat on my #14 bus…or even gets me on a bus when an over-loaded one passes me by.)

    Out in East County, at 99th & Powell, there’s no sidewalk to get to the bus stop, which is pretty much in a ditch anyway. Waiting for a bus there this week, I watched parents pushing kids in strollers on the shoulder along busy Powell Boulevard.

    We need to be thinking about transportation equity. Let the next streetcar be one that serves our existing neighborhoods –and loyal transit riders– not just yet another tool for new development. Let’s put a streetcar up SE Hawthorne Boulevard, so I can proudly ride the tram if I choose with my streetcar pass. Not get turned away at the tram’s doorway with my lowly bus transfer.

  12. I’m all for a Hawthorne Streetcar but I think it has to go far enough that the 14 bus can be cut and not have to provide duplicate/competing service.

    If the streetcar goes to 50th or 52nd, that should do most of the job.

    A BRT line along the Powell-Foster corridor and a shift in the #71 route (to connect to the streetcar on Hawthorne) should take care of the rest.

  13. I live 8 blocks from Hawthorne Blvd and use it every day to get from I-5 water avenue exit to my home near 39th. Some days I drive a minivan and some days I ride my motorcycle. Right now there is a serious safety problem with running busses up and down Hawthorne, and it creates terrible congestion.
    I am in general very much opposed to taking away traffic lanes on busy arterials for use with streetcars, I think it is a big mistake in most instances. However the facts of the matter are that right now, on Hawthorne, TriMet is running so many busses on the street that they have effectively taken away a traffic lane anyway. The three stipulations on this plan I would insist on, though, is first that the rail lines for the street car not be laid in the center of the lane, but instead, be laid out offset, so that tires for vehicles would not be driving on rails, but rather on concrete in between the rails, second, that once the street car line was operating, that the busses would not be permitted on Hawthorne any longer, and third, that a 4-5 story public parking garage be constructed somewhere along Hawthorne to replace the parking spaces that would be lost along the street for streetcar turnouts. The idea spot would be to use eminent domain and tear down that converted Swiss Miss monstrosity (a parking garage couldn’t be uglier) kitty corner to Safeway.
    I would also strongly suggest that the line be run up to 60th, then rather than stopping, the line be turned north to run north on 60th, then go over the 60th ave bridge over the Banfield freeway, then turn back East and terminate at the 45th ave Max station. Right now there’s a problem at that station as the old grocery store there (now health club) isn’t letting people park there any longer, and there’s no park and ride, that station is as useful as teats on a boar.

  14. Is this idea still going – I am all for it. If there is an advocacy group, I would like to be a part of it. Thanks ! Chris.

  15. Hawthorne SHOULD have been THE FIRST Streetcar line. The problems with running buses on this popular street have already been noted, and a Streetcar would have actually improved bus service rather than competed with it. Same with Belmont, Sandy, and quite a few other streets in East Portland between downtown and I-205… Even converting some bus lines to electric trolleybuses would have been a great intermediate step to a full streetcar line (and allowed some of the expense to be spread out – because the overhead wire and improved bus stops could have been built in phase 1, and the rails could have been phase 2.)

    But thanks to the wasteful and reckless spending on Streetcars elsewhere, this needs to take a back seat until we have a bus system that is “world-class”. If Hawthorne wants a Streetcar – then the residents and businesses can step up, and tax themselves to pay for it – ON TOP of all of the other mandatory taxes they pay, and IN ADDITION to TriMet tax. The rest of the region does not need to subsidize another neighborhood at the expense of cutting basic bus service elsewhere.

    • If Tigard wants improved bus service – then the residents and businesses can step up, and tax themselves to pay for it – ON TOP of all of the other mandatory taxes they pay, and IN ADDITION to TriMet tax. The rest of the region does not need to subsidize another neighborhood at the expense of cutting basic bus service elsewhere.

Leave a Reply to Paul Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *