Reconnecting America has just published Street Smart: Streetcars and Cities in the 21st Century. As you might imagine, it features a lot of material from Portland, and it is also visually beautiful. Every Streetcar fan should have one.
You can order it online and it is also available at Powells (it does not have an ISBN, so you can’t find it on their website, you should ask at the information desk).
60 responses to “Streetcar Vision in Print”
I walked to Powell’s over lunch –sorta spontaneously– and didn’t see it and couldn’t find it on their computer “streetcar. Looking both in the rail section where other streetcar stuff is, and in the regional area…nope, no book.
I did NOT ask for it at the information desk as I could not remember either the title, nor author. Calling them back from the office, the book is NOT in stock yet.
This book is very popular and we are currently sold out. I’ll have it on order by Monday the 5th. We keep it at our Burnside store in the Green Room in PNW-Display or the Rose room in aisle 645 in the railroad-trolley section.
glad to see an interest in this topic.
Meredith
Hmmm… It was Michael Powell himself who told me that had some, so I’ll have to check back with him.
Whoops… I should have read Meredith’s comment. Glad to know we number Powells’ staff among our readers!
Well connected the blog is Chris! Gratz.
I might have to go check this book out. :)
Go By Streetcar. Only $1.67 per passenger-mile.
Average American Car = $0.185 per passenger-mile.
AAA version works out = $0.328 per passenger-mile.
from: DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/Cost-Cars-Transit.htm
(clickable back to original data sources)
Thanks
JK
Jim-
You and your car numbers were completely and embarrasingly debunked- remember?
care to fill me in on the debunking, nate?
There you guys go again, arguing endlessly about operating costs, instead of focusing on what would be the best possible transit service for the region–which here in Portland happens to be BRT, in IMHO.
nate Says:
Jim-
You and your car numbers were completely and embarrasingly debunked- remember?
No they weren’t. You didn’t understand the difference between vehicle-miles, passenger-miles and between AAA’s theoretical calculations and actual data.
There is no way that a few differences between methods will tip the balance between car’s 18.5 cents and the streetcar’s 167 cents per passenger-mile.
Thanks
JK
Nick Says: There you guys go again, arguing endlessly about operating costs, instead of focusing on what would be the best possible transit service for the region–which here in Portland happens to be BRT, in IMHO.
JK: I have to disagree. If we don’t focus on cost, the best transportation would be on demand helicopter. Just pick up the phone and 5 min later you are picked up in front of your condo (or on the roof) and whisked to you destination at 50mph.
* Gets cars off the roads
* Supports bicyclers by leaving the asphalt to the bikes.
* Supports peds by returning the streets to peds and bikes.
* Frees up freeways for trucks.
* Saves time over any other mode.
* Lets us stop building those awful roads and still have excellent mobility
* This is Portland’s opportunity to become a world leader in the transportation of the future!
* Portland can become a world leader in manufacturing heliocopters.
This is truly the perfect solution for the region’s transportation problems. Come on guys – get behind this one – it is a winner on all evaluation criteria.
Thanks
JK
It’s good to read about new support for extending MAX to Vancouver. I’m not surprised – the MAX route through Vancouver now on the table is way better than the route Vancouverites rejected in 1995. A respectable BRT system would require new bridges over the Columbia and the slough. Since there’s little difference in cost between BRT and LRT bridges, how is BRT the best possible transit, since the only advantage BRT has over LRT is in cost?
I recently rode Los Angeles new BRT articulated buses, the ‘Rapid’ on the Wishire line. Those buses were the absolutely worst rattletraps ever, like riding in a truckbed, hmmm.
the best transportation would be on demand helicopter
Sure, and then in a few years, you’ll be calling on government to create more air because the helicopters are bumping into each other :-)
JK, let’s go over this again, and I’ll try and put as many things in your favor as I can…
Starting with a very cheap, compact car with a good warranty: The Kia Rio Sedan, 4dr, Manual. This is Kia’s lowest-priced car. Dealer invoice is $10,350. City mileage is rated at 32MPG. (All streetcar trips are, by definition, city trips.)
I’m going to assume the vehicle lasts a full 150K miles, above average for a Kia, and that the driver drives more miles per year than average (which lessens the impact of fixed monthly insurance costs), 15K miles. This makes the vehicle lifespan exactly 10 years.
Also assuming the buyer pays cash and has no cost of financing, and gets the vehicle at invoice price, no dealer extras or destination charges, etc.
Further assuming this person is a dedicated individual who does their own oil changes, at a cost of $15 per oil change, is a very safe driver with no accident or ticket history, and gets a dream insurance rate on this relatively unsafe car of $100/month.
Assuming brake pads and tires last 30K miles (all city driving, lots of stop and go) and clutches last 50K miles.
Cost of car: $10,350
Cost of 10yrs of insurance: $12,000
Cost of 150K miles of fuel at 32MPG at $2.50/gal: $11,718
Cost of oil changes at 5K intervals @ $15: $450
Cost of 2 additional clutches @ $300: $600
Cost of 4 brake jobs @ $150: $600
Cost of 4 tire replacements @ $150: $600
Incidental cost allowance (wiper blades, headlights, new batteries, misc maintenance): $500
Total cost: $36,818
Cost per mile @ 150K miles: 24.5 cents/mile.
Even the cheapest car out there with very generous assumptions (no finance costs, no unforeseen repairs, self maintenance, MPG rating absolutely achieved) is not getting 18 cents per mile, not even close. And that’s the cheapest car. 24.5 cents per mile is the absolute best I can give you.
Furthermore, we’re talking about comparison with streetcar here, these are all short trips which add significantly to wear-and-tear on a car. A car gets lower MPG during warm up and every time you start it up puts additional wear-and-tear on components. Plus, you’ve got to park it downtown which is going to cost you $1.25/hr (which is a city-subsidized rate — private parking costs more.)
Now go run the figures with a Ford Explorer and get back to me.
– Bob R.
Thanks Bob R.,
for again taking your time to provide us with real and thoughtful information!
I appreciate your ability to articulate extremely complex issues in common sense language, and the time you take to add value to these discussions.
Bob,
It seems clear that the cost per vehicle mile is higher than Jim claims. However, even at triple the cost you came up with ($0.73/mile), we still fall far short of the cost per mile of the Streetcar.
The only way to really make the case for cost-effectiveness of Streetcar is the adequately charge the environmental costs of gasoline-burning engines and fuel delivery systems. How much does it cost to keep our air clean? How much do we pay for ER treatments for uninsured accident victims? How much productivity do we lose from those hurt or killed in automobile accidents?
To be fair, we ought to attempt to measure those numbers for streetcar/lightrail as well.
I’m not in support of Jim’s claims, but it does remain that we ought to be looking at the cost-effectiveness of our transit dollars without being ideologically married to fixed-rail transit.
Thanks, Nate. When posting here I try and include my facts and figures right in the comments. JK asks you to click through to his web site, where he does indeed have figures posted.
Unfortunately, even though he has been warned about this, he continues to use national average figures for cars (which include all rural miles driven, higher passenger occupancies, etc.) to compare costs to urban transit systems.
For example, he uses a figure of 1.6 as the national average vehicle occupancy, but as has been posted here before, ODOT’s own figures based on actual data collected from accident statistics put Portland’s occupancy at 1.27. This may not seem like much but drastically changes passenger-mile calculations.
He discounts AAA’s own cost-per-mile figures while introducing his own methodology of dividing two separate national average figures to get that 18 cents, and never includes the costs of parking or any externalized costs for automobiles such as stormwater runoff, air pollution, health effects, etc.
For taxi fares, he uses local fares but the high national vehicle occupancy standard, and while he includes boarding charges he does not include time charges which most taxi companies charge along with mileage. Time charges are a significant factor for city driving. So in this case apples and oranges are being mixed, and not all the apples are being counted!
Now, a lot of data comparing transit to automobile use is hard to come by in apples-to-apples format, sometimes different agencies are involved, different years are used, different boundaries are used, and different definitions are used. But what is clear is that JK is not doing apples-to-apples comparisons.
– Bob R.
Jimmy K –
I agree with you. Of course, it would be easy to remove all externalities of automobile travel with a few simple laws:
1. No vehicle shall be allowed on the road that drips oil or other contaminants… a full hazardous material containment system should be a part of every vehicle.
2. All roads should be made of permeable surfaces and have bioswales in the right-of-way capable of absorbing all runoff.
3. All hazardous tailpipe emissions must be contained within the vehicle, perhaps the passenger compartment.
Point #3 is, of course, intentionally absurd. No one would drive if they had to breathe all the exhaust themselves. But by the billions of passenger-miles per year, those pollutants are put into the atmosphere and cause known health problems. If point #3 were actually law, most people would be driving electric cars charged from neighborhood solar collectors or some other low-emissions means.
– Bob R.
tried to order the book at Amazon, they don’t list it [yet], will try Powells, have you any info on when their order will arrrive?
Bob R. Says: JK, let’s go over this again, and I’ll try and put as many things in your favor as I can…
Cost per mile @ 150K miles: 24.5 cents/mile.
JK: OK, lets take you 24.5 c/vehicle mile and apply your 1.27 passengers and we get 19.29 cents per passenger mile.
But for the prsent argument this is all NOT RELEVENT because even the highest car number floating around here, AAA’s 52.2 C/v-mi = 41 c/passenger-mile (at 1.27) is much less than the streetcar and average bus and about the same as MAX. It is, however more than the lowest cost bus line.
So what’s your point? That the streetcar, although outrageously expensive, is not as outragously expensive as claimed?
Thanks
JK
(not a government employee)
When ever I see a Streetcar or MAX/LRT full of people, I am happy. When I see Bike Commuters and learn how many are using their bikes to commute to work, I am happy. Anything reasonable that returns an investment that encourages all mode other then cars on street and freeways, I am happy.
Where I am not happy is when cars and trucks are not addressed in balanced infrastructural investments to secondary modes.
Jim K, I see a place for Streetcars and MAX/LRT and they have probably been one of the key catalists in this regeneration of downtown Portland. I personally like the new Streetcars and see them as being a better mouse trap in most of our new interurban future offering over MAX/LRT.
My problem with most HC Transit advocates is that they are always overstating the benefits and understating the cost. Lets get off of lying on a lot of this and talk in common sense.
An example is weather we need a Streetcar line getting extended to to OMSI or not we probably need getting a streetcar extended up Hawthorne. This Hawthorne route should be just a successful as going into the Pearl District and NW 23rd. Why, it is because it runs right through a lot of people and locations where people want to go.
Now if we get Streetcar to OMSI and now I am looking at a comparision between running Streetcar or MAX/LRT out to Milwaukie in Clackamas County and I equate the cost of Streetcar ($200M) from OMSI throught Sellwood on Milwaukie Street and MAX/LRT on McLoughlin at a estimated cost of ($800M) into the town center of Milwaukie, what is the best?
Which will attract the most riders? Which will have the highest Return on Investment?
Can we start thinking more logically about transit and cars and trucks.
Paul,
In the comparison of SC and MAX to Milwaukie, I have suggested that from Milwaukie there could be two SC routes to Portland: One on the east side and the other, crossing the Sellwood Bridge, to the west side. They could share the same route to Tacoma and McLoughlin and split apart there; and the route over the Sellwood Bridge could then connect to the Westshore track–assuming that the latter gets built. If costs can be held down, this should provide two routes for about a third of the cost of one Milwaukie MAX route. The east side leg could then continue on to the Lloyd District(as the Central Eastside streetcar) and then over to NW Portland. The Westshore line could also continue to South Waterfront and NW Portland, as it does now.
Essentially what I have been envisioning, is streetcars leaving the major transit centers—such as Milwaukie TC, Lake Oswego, NW 23rd Ave–but with alternating destinations. This would provide excellent coverage, and service, and could inspire the diverse business centers–in combination with transit-oriented-development–that Portland needs. I think they would be much better utilized than MAX is, and should cost far less to install. At peak commuter hours more cars could be put in service–and then parked during slower times, thus saving on wear and tear.
To accomplish this crisscrossing network I think a central crossing point is needed–I have suggested building a streetcar track across the lower supports of the Marquam Bridge. So, using Milwaukie TC as an example of a starting point: Car #1 goes up the eastside (approximating the proposed MAX route) and continues to Lloyd District, and then crosses to NW Portland. It then comes back south on the West Shore line to Lake Oswego. It heads backs north, but then crosses on the Marquam to go to the Lloyd District. Car #2 also leave Milwukie TC, ten minutes later, goes to Tacoma St. and over the Sellwood Bridge and then north on the Westshore route to NW Portland, over to Lloyd District, then South on the East side back to Milwaukie TC.
This is exactly what many buses do now, when they service more than one route, in succession.
With the Streetcar, I have been suggesting that Front Ave could eventually be a significant central route because it is crossed or touched by existing and proposed routes, allowing easy transfers to other SC routes. Why Front Ave? Well, SW Barbur Boulverd feeds into it from the south. And, high density is clearly spreading northward; we now have the “Pacifica Tower” being built several blocks north of the Marquam Bridge. along Front Ave, and I think this portends future development. I think NW Front Ave could also be the first link in the path that could go across the “new interstate bridge.”
I think it is in the cards that riverfront property in the Portland-Vancouver area will be bought up by high end developers. It may take a decade or two but I think it is inevitable. We will see expensive condo projects both along the Willamette River and along the Columbia.
Hopefully there will be room out at terminals 5 and 6 for the industries, such as Sulzer or Gunderson to locate to.
My idea of criscrossing and interconnecting lines would provide easy travel to many other districts, not just to downtown Portland, as the MAX lines are doing. With MAX we have a radial network of routes. My idea of the Streetcar system is more like the decorative bow on a present–looping through the satellite Transit centers (eg. connecting Lake OSwego and Milwaukie over the existing rail bridge, going through Vancouver, looping through NW Portland, looping throug Hosford Abernethy) but all crisscrossing in one central point.
Sharon Nasset called me but I don’t have time for any volunteering since I am working in Cannon Beach. I have needed to ask her if it is really feasible to build a public highway (the new interstate bridge route) in a railroad-owned right of way? Some people, like Mr. Tired, seem to think this is an impossible hurdle.
I have high hopes that with Oregon Iron Works in charge the costs of the SC system can be gradually reigned in. From my experience in construction, though, I know that most people will resist innovation and change until it is absolutely necessary; they will argue and fight it with all they have although plain reason will show that there are better ways. I have been challenging the assumption that high rise condos need to cost several hundred dollars a square foot. I don’t expect that it will be any easier to say that Streetcar sytems don’t need to cost $25-30 million per mile…or at least continue to escalate. And I have little faith that a lot of public comment–if it were open to that–would result in any greater cost-efficiency. But I know there are some brilliant minds out there, somewhere…. I certainly have had to live my own life with the greatest cost-effectiveness.
JK wrote: So what’s your point? That the streetcar, although outrageously expensive, is not as outragously expensive as claimed?
No, JK, I made my point in the original comment, and you apparently chose to ignore it.
Here it is again: If you consider the additional costs from making very short trips (need for additional parking spaces, cost of private or publicly subsidized parking, additional wear and tear on vehicles), the costs of driving are going to be much, mugh higher. “Apples to apples”, I belive I said about three times. Thanks for not noticing.
– Bob R.
PS… Apples to apples.
For those wondering what happened to the cover image of the book, it appears that Reconnecting America let their domain name expire. Hopefully they’ll remedy this soon :-)
Bob R. Says: JK wrote: So what’s your point? That the streetcar, although outrageously expensive, is not as outragously expensive as claimed?
No, JK, I made my point in the original comment, and you apparently chose to ignore it.
JK: The first 27 lines of your message consisted of cost estimates for cars. That is what I was responding to, not your last four lines which were just blind speculation mostly devoid of even estimated numbers. So now your bring up the last four lines as if they were your main point.
Bob R. Says: Here it is again: If you consider the additional costs from making very short trips (need for additional parking spaces, cost of private or publicly subsidized parking, additional wear and tear on vehicles), the costs of driving are going to be much, mugh higher. “Apples to apples”, I belive I said about three times. Thanks for not noticing.
JK: So put some realistic numbers on these items and we might be able to talk, but when it gets to wear from short trips and subsidized parking, this will rapidly degenerate into the increased speed, safety and comfort of cars.
And I am still wondering what was you original point, since even your data does not change my original conclusion that the streetcar is ungodly expensive. Even more that light rail, it:
Costs Too Much, Does Too Little
Thanks
JK
Bob R.Point #3 is, of course, intentionally absurd. No one would drive if they had to breathe all the exhaust themselves. But by the billions of passenger-miles per year, those pollutants are put into the atmosphere and cause known health problems.
JK: There you go again. See ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/big_rig_cleanup/rolling-smokestacks-cleaning-up-americas-trucks-and-buses.html for how muchmore buses pollute that even SUVs
See: http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html for how light rail and streetcars in most of the country put mercury, uranium and thorium into the air.
Bob R. If point #3 were actually law, most people would be driving electric cars charged from neighborhood solar collectors or some other low-emissions means.
JK: I’d like to see that solar collector to run MAX plus all those electric buses. Maybe cover over a few square miles of farmland? (You get about 400 watt-hr per square-meter of collector per sunny day) Each gallon of gas is about 38 Kw-hr, so for a gallon of gas you need 91 sq meters (about 900 sqft) of solar panel and one sunny day. An electric car does not have the 30% efficiency of a heat engine, so instead of 900 sq ft, perhaps 400 would do. Feel free to check my math above as I did this quickly.
Thanks
JK
Do those given automobile costs include subsidies? Ones like “free” parking, pollution clean-up, some road work and maybe oil defense? I’m guessing that the streetcar costs include the maintenance facility. Overall, I’m not crazy about the streetcar, especially when designed for development and not transit, but putting almost everyone in their own vehicle is a very inefficient use of space and energy to move a large number of people. And, someday, I want to be able to steer all these debates to a single post.
Whether the cost per passenger mile for a car is $0.185, or $0.328, or 24.5 cents is beside the point, because the owner-driver of the car pays it. The real issue is that the $1.67 per passenger mile for the streetcar is taxpayer subsidized when it should be paid for with passenger farebox revenues that truly reflect the costs of operations.
Now we’re getting somewhere boys!
This discussion re: the streetcar vs. the personal automobile is very interesting so far.
I’d like to point out a couple of things:
-The numbers for the streetcar include virtually all costs, however, the numbers for autos, as someone noted, do not include significant costs such as road maintainence, environmental remediation (big money here), foreign wars, parking (including both the additional cost and the urban space) and an increased need for more road capacity which leads to additional costs in the form of expensive road modification and expansion.
Another thing that I feel is very important: we simply don’t have the space for everyone in the city to take a car for every trip. Outside of the city, a car is probably the best mode of transit. However, in an urban environment, it really makes little sense.
I know Jim likes to talk about the “increased speed, safety and comfort” of cars, but I don’t think he’s correct on those points in terms of urban travel. In the city, its pretty damn efficient to catch the streetcar or a bus or LRT. Since you don’t have to worry about parking, you’re saving time at peak commute time. And I’ve never felt unsafe on public transit. I can’t imagine that city people actually feel unsafe on Portlands transit. Furthermore, cars are *very* unsafe. As far as comfort, cars of course will always win.
I’d like to encourage Jim and Terry to acknowldege an important factor in this discussion: we cannot possibly provide enough parking and road capacity in the central city to accomadate every trip.
I rarely drive. My truck leaves the driveway about once every six weeks. To be real, I’m afraid to drive.
This is because, when driving, even in the best of circumstances, you are only about 6 to 8 seconds from dying a very grisly death. On the MAX or streetcar, anything short of being t-boned by a semi truck and all the passengers will be relatively safe (perhaps an injury from falling down, but that’d be it). I’m guessing the number of people killed by drunk drivers while riding on the MAX is… Zero? To flip that the other way, how many heads-of-family have received DUI’s while riding transit?
“Nick Says: There you guys go again, arguing endlessly about operating costs, instead of focusing on what would be the best possible transit service for the region–which here in Portland happens to be BRT, in IMHO.
JK: I have to disagree. If we don’t focus on cost, the best transportation would be on demand helicopter. Just pick up the phone and 5 min later you are picked up in front of your condo (or on the roof) and whisked to you destination at 50mph.”
LET ME CLARIFY my assertion: the best possible service between streetcars, buses, BRT and LRT, which are the most common modes of public transit available.
As for BRT/LRT to Vancouver, since I know the LRT is going to go in on any new bridge, why not make the transit lanes dual-mode BRT/LRT, to provide for future possiblities?
JK –
I am pleased that you are now posting links to articles from the Union of Concerned Scientists. It was an interesting article, and I agree that diesel transport systems, from long-haul freight to buses, need to be cleaner. Much is being done in that area as fleets begin the process of switching over. However, you’ve managed to segue from a discussion of the costs (direct and external) of cars vs. streetcars to one of cars vs. buses. Are you also against buses?
Incidentally, now that you are using the Union of Concerned Scientists as an authority, does that mean you are no longer denying that Global Warming exists and that it is largely human-caused?
I also read the article from Oak Ridge National Laboratories that you posted. Oak Ridge is an interesting place, I’ve been there. Their main home page says “It’s not easy being green” and that’s quite true for them… half the town seems to be cordoned off behind barbed wire fence warning of toxic and radioactive contamination.
As for your calculations on solar, please note that a modern, fast electric car consumes about 2.5Kw per mile, so to recharge a car that has driven 20 miles to the office would take 50Kw. If you had a garage or carport roof at that office with 20 Sq. Meters of solar collector (assuming your quoted rate of 400w/hr per sq meter is correct), that car would recharge in 6.25 hours sitting at the office, completely off grid. (The company could potentially profit from the clean energy sold to employees and customers) At home at night, the car can charge from off-peak grid power after people have turned out the lights, turned down the heat, and gone to bed.
– Bob R.
Nick –
Regarding transit lanes on a future Columbia River Crossing being dual-mode LRT/BRT, I think that is a fine idea so long as the basic condition is met that LRT trains do not have to slow down or operate at reduced frequencies in order to accommodate buses on the bridge. This may mean requiring wider lanes and shoulders for the buses. (If a pure busway were to be constructed, these wider lanes and shoulders would probably be included anyway.)
Trains have the advantage of being able to pass each other closely at high speed without having to worry about bumping into each other (unless there is a serious design flaw, such as the horrible mistake made when re-engineering the Seattle Monorail in the 1980’s and introducing a pinch point.)
On busways such as the ones in Eugene and Los Angeles, there are sections with no real shoulders, limiting the top speed of operation. (This is sometimes done so that a busway can be crammed in to the smaller ROW of what used to be a true rail corridor.) In the Los Angeles example, buses must slow to less than 35mph in order to pass each other.
So long as the trackbed/roadway for a combined LRT/BRT lane can be done in a way that doesn’t compromise the operation of either mode, I’m fine with it.
(As has been discussed by others, there is no real reason why any of this must be tied to a new mega-bridge-does-it-all project, however.)
– Bob R.
Everyone –
I made an announcement a few days ago over on HawthorneStreetcar, but it occurs to me I should also mention it here, and this thread seems like the appropriate place to do it.
I was recently invited to join the Portland Streetcar Citizens Advisory Committee and did so last week. I look forward to participating in the process, and will attend my first meeting this week.
– Bob R.
The 1st reason I gave City Council for supporting the original streetcar line was its connection to MAX. Transit systems must incorporate convenient transfers between lines, whether light rail, streetcar or bus. Since the original streetcar line was short in length, the least number of expensive streetcars could run frequently enough to make the transfer convenient.
The next reason I gave City Council was that the demographics of the route predicted adequate ridership initially, and would spur development for more ridership.
It seems to me that the next, planned streetcar expansion over the Broadway Bridge into Lloyd District maintains the integrity of this line of thought: connections to MAX, frequent service, demographics that spur compact development.
However, the Rose Quarter/Lloyd District streetcar line has better demographics if it extends east on Weidler to 15th, south to Multnomah, then west to Grand, rather than turning at 7th south to Oregon and west to Grand. Both routes spur development, but the extension to 15th serves the patrons and residents of Lloyd District much more conveniently. The Streetcar committee has not fairly discussed the implications of this route. I think, in this case, they hold the development aspect as a priority over ridership. What does Chris Smith say? hmm?
Chris Smith says that going out to 15th increases travel time to the Central Eastside and OMSI unacceptably.
But I agree that there is ridership to be served in this area. I think it’s better served by a spur line from the Lloyd District to Hollywood, and I have helped encourage an advocacy organization for that corridor.
I have helped encourage an advocacy organization for that corridor
Are you –or are you not– encouraging an organization for the Hawthorne corridor? :-)
Absolutely! I’m encouraging neighborhoods all over the city to look at the opportunity for Streetcar on their main streets or in their centers.
Lloyd to Hollywood and Hawthorne are the first two to get organized.
As chair of the City-wide Citizens Advisory Committee, I don’t have the luxury of picking favorites. In particular, the idea of Streetcar on Burnside (serving my neighborhood) is going to have to go throught the same planning and feasibility analysis as the rest of the ideas.
“As far as comfort, cars of course will always win.”
not true. trying driving with a busted disc in your lower back; every speed bump, pothole and driver cutting you off is a flirtation with agony. streetcar and max, where you can stand up comfortably (unlike bus) are much preferable to any automobile (including a bus) that does not have a bed to lie down on.
Bob R:
Electric cars have much better numbers than that. The Ranger EV uses 500 watt-hours per mile, or about 1/5 of your numbers…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Ranger_EV
That is a pickup truck, the gasoline version gets about 25 mpg in the hands of an average driver.
Telsa motors is claiming the equivalent of 110 miles per gallon, for a sports car.
http://www.teslamotors.com/performance/electric_power.php
Backing those numbers out, if you burned a gallon of gasoline at 100% efficiency, you’d get 33.7 kwh, so 33.7/110 = about 300 watts per mile, or about 1/8th of your numbers.
And Terry:
As a homeowner, I pay $150/year to deal with the runoff from the city streets as part of my sewer bill. If there weren’t so many cars, (and more buses/LRT/streetcars/bikes/etc,) there would be less streets, and they’d be narrower, so I’m fairly sure that I’d pay less than $150/year… (Compare that to how much I’m paying in taxes for the construction costs of the yellow line: $4.16)
I agree with Bob R on #1 and #2, but we need to bill the bioswale construction costs to users, not to people that were dumb enough to decommission a perfectly good septic system and connect to the city sewer. (It cost me $11k to do it too, and now I have to pay for treating the stupid roads.)
Haha… U got me there Peter ;)
Anyways, your comment led me to another reason why transit may be “more comfortable” than a car.
My anecdotal example: Riding transit gives you the opportunity to read or do work while in a car one is perpetually frustrated by traffic.
Anyways, I defy Jim to argue that cars are the best transit option 100 percent of the time for 100 percent of the population in Portland’s central city. If he affirms that he believes that scenario is reasonable, we can officially label him bonkers.
Matthew –
Thank you very much for the correction. I had read an article a few weeks ago that quoted Tesla’s numbers for their roadster as well as other cars, and my memory was off by more than a factor of 10. (That’s good news — it makes the numbers for electric cars work out even better, and here in often-cloudy western Oregon we can’t expect as much out of solar cells as then can in California.)
After some Googling around it appears that GM’s original production EV1s achieved 115KWh/mi and Tesla is claiming 200KWh/mi for their performance roadster.
I stand corrected and more optimistic than before. :-)
– Bob R.
Regarding the Rose Quarter/Lloyd District Streetcar Line debate over whether the initial line should turn south from Weidler at 7th vs 15th, I’ll concede that a spur from 7th to Hollywood District is a viable option to more fully serve Lloyd District eventually; the operative word being ‘eventually’.
Initially, the extension to 15th would serve far more of Lloyd District, absolutely necessary for building ridership. Initially, the turn south at 7th may necessarily go no further south than Oregon St. Eventually, (assuming the turn at 15th was the preferred option), a spur from Weidler south to OMSI ‘could’ occur at MLK rather than 7th, which would make the route through Central Eastside faster by eliminating 2 rail ‘turns’ and 2 or 3 stations.
Eventually, an ‘extension’ from 15th to Hollywood has a reduced cost. And, because streetcars (westbound from Hollywood) also turn south at 15th and Broadway (and west on Multnomah), they make a better connection to MAX at Holliday Park & 7th stations.
So, Chris, all I’m doing is maintaining the integrity of some complex design principles. If you’re supporting a faster trip through the Central Eastside to OMSI, the debate favors the extension to 15th rather than 7th. I want you to either explain my argument before the committee, or arrange that I may make it before the committee, myself. Thanks. Art
Art, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but that debate got settled about two years ago. We submitted a locally preferred alternative to the Feds almost a year ago for 7th/MLK/Grand.
And OMSI is not a spur, it’s the logical step on completing a loop around the central city.
Hey all,
What a lively debate. We are experiencing some difficulties as we are about to release a new website at Reconnecting America dot org. Basically it will be a database of hopefully any study that has been done on TOD. But at the moment bear with us as we work on getting everything in working order.
Cheers.
Jeff Wood
Program Associate
Reconnecting America
“JK: So put some realistic numbers on these items and we might be able to talk, but when it gets to wear from short trips and subsidized parking, this will rapidly degenerate into the increased speed, safety and comfort of cars.”
Huh? JK, you don’t even mention ‘externalities’ on your website or in your goofy numbers. At least Bob brings them up… why don’t you come up with the estimates? That would at least make your “numbers” more efficacious. I’ve got one for you… what is the price for the death of a US soldier? How about 10,000 Iraqis? I’m not saying that driving a car is directly correlated, but what I am saying is that there is a security premium related to the procurment and consumption of foreign oil. What that cost is, who knows… but I do know it makes driving a car pretty damn expensive whether you pay that cost at the pump or not.
Ron Says:
“JK: So put some realistic numbers on these items and we might be able to talk, but when it gets to wear from short trips and subsidized parking, this will rapidly degenerate into the increased speed, safety and comfort of cars.”
Huh? JK, you don’t even mention ‘externalities’ on your website or in your goofy numbers. At least Bob brings them up… why don’t you come up with the estimates? That would at least make your “numbers” more efficacious. I’ve got one for you… what is the price for the death of a US soldier? How about 10,000 Iraqis? I’m not saying that driving a car is directly correlated, but what I am saying is that there is a security premium related to the procurment and consumption of foreign oil. What that cost is, who knows… but I do know it makes driving a car pretty damn expensive whether you pay that cost at the pump or not.
Appearently you don’t know that transit uses foreign oil too and has ‘externalities’ too.
Thanks
Jk
There is a cost of energy consumption in the United States and I would like to see energy use and consumption go down in the world let alone the United States.
We must take reasonable and prudent steps to reduce our dependance on foreign sources of energy.
We are addicted to oil and we cannot just go out there and pull the plug. We must start an agressive process to reduce this reliance that hurts most every aspect of society and value structure.
Why I jump off on to this subject is because of the preceeding posting that references Foreign Oil.
For 8-year of my life I sat on a select committee of the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce on energy. I was the only citizen based environmental leaning person with an Oregon Bred conscience to protect that water, air and with a desire to leave the world better place after energy extraction.
All I can tell you is that my United States, my respect for our democracy, my understanding of what is happening in Alaska, and my respect for the environment has lead me to know without a question that OIL can be taken from Alaska and ANWAR and has less negative consequences then leaving in the ground and buying OIL from our enemies. There has been too much environmental hype with Alaska by too many people who do not know enough about what is happening there and in the world.
At the same time I am telling everyone we must reduce our consumption of energy, we are feeding the devil and that devil can mean different things to different people but it is the devil and there are consequences.
Chris, it’s a cop-out to defer to decisions made years ago. I want an explanation. Any average Joe who gets seriously involved expects more of an answer than “We say so!” To maintain your credibility with the public, more is expected. There are large groups of rail opponents making charges that streetcar and light rail planners are unaccountable to the public. You lose my support, you lose untold numbers of others. Don’t give anyone the snobbish line, “that debate was settled years ago.”
I didn’t say the route to OMSI was a spur. I said the route through Central Eastside would be faster if the turn south was located at MLK rather than 7th, another point you deign to leave unanswered.
Chris, it’s a cop-out to defer to decisions made years ago.
Then we can give up on Federal money. Applying for federal transportation funds has a definite process and a definite timeline. If you want to revisit the alignment, then add at least two years to when we open something.
This is EXACTLY why I’m investing so much energy in the CRC process NOW. Because once we make a wrong decision, we have to turn back the clock years to revisit it.
And I don’t think we made the wrong decision on the eastside.
I didn’t say the route to OMSI was a spur. I said the route through Central Eastside would be faster if the turn south was located at MLK rather than 7th, another point you deign to leave unanswered.
Sorry, I misunderstood. Yes, that would probably save a little bit of time, but at the cost of a lot of development potential in the Lloyd District.
Which I will admit is a similar kind of trade-off as the one you are proposing to 15th. It becomes a question of balancing, and going to 15th added too much time.
Chris, there would be no loss of development potential in the Lloyd District with the streetcar extension to 15th and west on Multnomah to Grand. The same developable lots have access with either route.
However, the Lloyd District will always have a more definite connection to the Pearl District and NW 23rd than Central Eastside. Any new development located near 7th is likely to relate more to those and Lloyd District venues further east.
Eventually, the OMSI route will become important, especially after a MAX bridge over the Willamette is built offering access to South Waterfront. At that point, an extension further east into Lloyd District (or as far as Hollywood), will have to be built (and will require a transfer) to serve the larger base of Lloyd District streetcar patrons.
Anyway, these are the basic arguments I made during the planning process that were curtly dismissed. NE Broadway and Weidler are overrun with traffic. The extension to 15th would be a novel experiment in traffic calming. Explain that to the federalists.
However, the Lloyd District will always have a more definite connection to the Pearl District and NW 23rd than Central Eastside. Any new development located near 7th is likely to relate more to those and Lloyd District venues further east.
Which is why I think the right service concept would be a line from NW 23rd through the Pearl and Lloyd District to Hollywood via Broadway/Weidler :-)
To the folks who prioritized Sandy or Hawthorne before the Loop (aka Eastside), what do you expect those lines to connect into?
Chris, I like the idea of extending the Streetcar to Lloyd District and Hollywood as you describe.
This can happen fast or faster then most of the other opportunities and with it a lessor cost over building a new bridge. I like using the Hawthorne Bridge to get to the eastside too.
Present value dollars have to tell us that what can be done quickly and at a lower cost is more then important. If it connects to people and we achieve great ridership we have a win – win.
Has anyone found this book yet at Powells, or are they on order?
Thanks!
JK said:
“Appearently you don’t know that transit uses foreign oil too and has ‘externalities’ too.
Thanks
Jk”
How in the heck do you draw that conclusion from what I said? I said you offer no estimates for externalities in your goofy numbers. Add them in for your transit estimates too! Put them out there and let people evaluate what you have to say based upon real apples to apples comparisons. Your website honestly just makes you look a little foolish. I admire your zeal, but this is the real world we’re talking about.
nate Says: I can’t imagine that city people actually feel unsafe on Portlands transit. Furthermore, cars are *very* unsafe. As far as comfort, cars of course will always win.
Jimmy K Says: On the MAX or streetcar, anything short of being t-boned by a semi truck and all the passengers will be relatively safe (perhaps an injury from falling down, but that’d be it). I’m guessing the number of people killed by drunk drivers while riding on the MAX is… Zero? To flip that the other way, how many heads-of-family have received DUI’s while riding transit?
JK: Just for your information, MAX kills about THREE times as many people per passenger-mile as cars do in the Portland area. (Once you are on MAX, you are pretty safe, the problem is being near MAX.) See DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/MAXSafetyChart.html
Thanks
JK
JK says:
JK: Just for your information, MAX kills about THREE times as many people per passenger-mile as cars do in the Portland area. (Once you are on MAX, you are pretty safe, the problem is being near MAX.)
Right Jim, and standing near I5 probably isn’t a problem, or riding your bike down Stark Street and trying to take a left (http://bikeportland.org/2007/02/05/nick-bucher-memorial-plans/).
For all interested, I picked up a copy at Powell’s last night, so there are several available in both the Rose room an the Oregon/Pacific NW section
I agree with this streetcar route, “a line from NW 23rd through the Pearl and Lloyd District to Hollywood via Broadway/Weidler”, suggested by Chris and others. But, the development expected to occur near 7th will not have streetcar access to Lloyd Center venues further east, which is why I favor the initial line extending to 15th, turning south there and west on Multnomah. The line to Hollywood will not become practical for years as it is a lower priority over the line to OMSI. Furthermore, the line to OMSI is more direct if it makes the single turn south from Wiedler at MLK rather than at 7th.
“To the folks who prioritized Sandy or Hawthorne before the Loop (aka Eastside), what do you expect those lines to connect into?”
I agree with Chris here. Rose Quarter, Lloyd District, Central Eastside, and OMSI (especially after a rail bridge connects to South Waterfront), all have much more potential than Hawthorne and Sandy Blvd streetcar lines. A Burnside line also has more potential, but I’m uncertain about the engineering at this point.
Excellent letter in the Oregonian today, Chris.