Couplet Lives to Fight Another Day


I was fortunate to testify relatively early in the process yesterday, as part of one of about a half dozen invited panels.

That was before some 80 members of the public testified.

I had to leave immediately after my testimony to get to an MPAC meeting.

I just finished going through almost six hours of video of hearings (and I still missed the vote/final statements of Sten and Potter, which went past the 6-hour mark I had set my recorder for). Thank god for the 30-second-forward button on TiVO.

The net is that the couplet will move into preliminary engineering. But auto traffic will return to Burnside at 15th, so the Catholic Cathedral and School will not be impacted by additional cars.

Still in question is whether the Streetcar might use the stretch of Couch from 15th to 19th. That issue will be studied further.

Commissioner Saltzman who felt “trammetized” wants to keep the Enhanced Burnside alternative alive in case costs for the couplet turn out to be unfundable. The Mayor is concerned about how the project competes for funding with other transportation priorities.

Commissioner Sten wants to make sure that the couplet doesn’t happen UNLESS the Streetcar also happens (this is different from Sam’s previous position, which was that the decision was divisible – he has apparently now embraced the full bundling). Sten also added an amendment tying the decision into the Central City Plan update process (a potential delaying factor) but with a strong suggestion that the Central City Plan better include the couplet.

As part of the discussion, Sam had to defend the local match funding sources for the Streetcar Loop project and took pains to point out that they don’t compete with the potential Burnside sources.

Net result: A unanimous vote for $2.6M to start preliminary engineering on the couplet, and $500K to do project development on the Enhanced Existing option as a backup if the couplet proves too expensive.

Sam also has marching orders to figure out how the City-wide rail plan will get integrated into the early stages of the Central City Plan update.

Planning DIrector Gil Kelley, a confirmed couplet opponent, chose to go to MPAC rather than the Council hearing. I doubt he will be thrilled with the direction to reconcile the couplet with the Central City Plan.

We’re a long way from done…

Oregonian blog coverage here.


22 responses to “Couplet Lives to Fight Another Day”

  1. Woo hoo!

    This project is of particular interest to me as I live on Burnside. I dread crossing it every time, and unfortunately it’s a daily chore. I hate that street, and I don’t take that term lightly.

    Chris, thank you for all the effort you have put forth. I wish I could be more involved, but between work and college, there’s little time.

  2. Steve Duin’s column had it right this morning — it was theater in the round — nothing fresh or new: the updated slide show, a chorus of paid political consultants AND the addition of some of the cutest school kids we’ll ever see at City Hall. I applaud the Council’s decision to move the cars back to 15th away from Cathedral School (with further possibility of moving the streecar onto Burnside at 15th as well). But how could the Commissioners completely ignore the Pearl District’s ONLY public school, the Emerson School at Park & Couch? Those children breathe even MORE bad air and will have five times the cars going by their windows, too? Folks, Emerson just LITERALLY got thrown under the train!! This project needs more work!!!

  3. But how could the Commissioners completely ignore the Pearl District’s ONLY public school, the Emerson School at Park & Couch?

    They didn’t. Council asked that the Emerson area be looked in detail during the preliminary engineering phase to maximize safety.

  4. The best way to “maximize safety” for Emerson School would be to HONESTLY CONSIDER the Enhanced Burnside Option — which would keep the cars on a safer Burnside and NOT run them by the school. But the real question is — if Emerson School had walked EVERY STUDENT in front of the council to testify, would their voices have been louder than the large property owners and the “independent consultants”?? Doubt it.

  5. I think there is an important (though perhaps not overriding) distinction to consider when comparing the claims of the Archdiocese and the Emerson School.

    The Emerson School was not chartered until early 2003 and did not open at its current location until September of 2003, long after much of the Burnside-Couch planning and public process had already taken place and had been announced.

    The Archdiocese has a stronger claim because of their long-established presence in that location. I would be curious to know if back in 2003 the Emerson School site selection committee was aware of the couplet proposal and what their thoughts were at the time.

    – Bob R.

  6. if Emerson School had walked EVERY STUDENT in front of the council to testify, would their voices have been louder than the large property owners

    I actually felt sorry for the PDC guy who came on after the kids…positively bursting with enthusiasm –albeit heartlessly– and waxing eloquent over the millions of investments to be made, the increased values, and, oh, sure, the “gap” that may require still more –was that $40 million?– in additional public subsidies to make this all happen.

    This sure ain’t about the kids. And it sure ain’t about the pedestrians either. Not that I don’t think there isn’t value to what’s proposed…but is it value enough, and is it an important enough priority? And if it IS…then why not have the real beneficiencies pay MORE of it through a Local Improvement District?

  7. So with the Streetcar coming down Burnside and Couch or whatever… does that mean at the crossovers places like Powell’s books will now have 2x the amount of LID to pay since they have 2x as much service?

    How would that work anyway?

    Also, I support what Frank Dufay says, but only if the general funds used for roadways is brought to equity by tolls (electronically collected) to provide a more balanced and intelligent choice among customers of each respective service.

    Hell, it wouldn’t be much, just charge a measly 15-20 cents per mile on the interstates… Oregon could be the first state to cover 100% of roadway costs out of roadway collected/directly associated funds collection!!!! :)

  8. with all the negative, proves the couplet may not be a good idea, except couch to Broadway to allow left turns into city center…turns on third, fifth and Broadway as Rose City transit used to do. forget streetcars…. Lars is right on this one…

  9. Walking Couch for the some-hundredth time Friday night, the street does seem like it could become a 1-way thoroughfare without much sacrifice. I was glad City Council nixed the NW 19th for decoupling, a huge mistake for Sam to push that non-starter. Sam needs a new pair of glasses, ones with bigger lenses.

  10. Lars is right on this one…

    And the question is? …. what position can he take that will stir up his audience. I can’t imagine Lars having any real position on any public policy much less something as banal as what would make Burnside work better as a public street.

  11. Although I live in the NW district close to Burnside and favor the couplet (without the streetcar), the estimated price tag makes this project look, to me, as a political albatross.

    If the enhanced Burnside option only costs $20 million, I’d rather go for this than the couplet with streetcar.

    Chris, I suggest you reevaluate this whole thing. After the tram brouhaha, Bodansky and Lars Larson will have enough ammunition on this for the next 5-10 years.

    From a pure political standpoint, this couplet is a hot potato.

    I mean, if the tram finally cost 57 million and this is starting out at 80 million, doing the couplet might be political suicide.

    Nick

  12. Nick –

    I agree that the price tag is steep and that if any of this goes forward it must be carefully, studiously managed with a bias toward preventing cost overruns.

    The cost without streetcar is roughly estimated at $40 million, while Burnside-only around $20 million. This makes sense, as the couplet represents the difference between serious reconstruction of one street vs. two streets.

    There is a city-wide transit evaluation process now beginning at PDOT which (if I understand the road map correctly) will first identify transit corridors based on history and current use and current demographics, and then later identify goals for routes and modes to serve those corridors. Any streetcar (or other transit changes to Burnside) should be a part of that process but not supersede that process.

    Although the tram had huge cost overruns (largely due to changes at the upper landing caused by decisions at OHSU), we’ve done several streetcar projects on-budget and most streetscape projects are on-budget, so maintaining cost controls should be less troublesome than with the tram.

    My feeling at this time is that we should proceed with the couplet but not do the streetcar until and unless it is evaluated as necessary in the city-wide transit plan. However, at the time we are doing street construction on the couplet we should go ahead with any required utility relocation and employ construction and design techniques which would make a future streetcar installation as painless as possible. This could include building some platforms (which buses can still use just fine) now rather than tearing up sidewalks again later.

    The reason this is all coming to a head now is because Burnside physically is due for serious reconstruction now, whatever form the final streetscape takes. Burnside is going to be torn up – the question is what will it look like when we put it back together?

    – Bob R.

    PS… For those who get heated up about Trams and costs, please note that we’ve now spent enough $$$ in Iraq to construct well over 7,000 aerial trams, or 140 aerial trams in every state.

  13. Bob R, if the city is so good at bringing things within budget, and the tram was a different beast in your eyes, why has the Gibb St. pedestrian bridge gone from $1.6M in 2002 to $11M (and climbing)? A seven times increase. Sure beats inflation. We’ve certainly built ped bridges before, the freeway and Macadam hasn’t changed, the grade issue hasn’t changed, nothing has changed. There were over 12 extensive models of the bridge in the recent AIA Gallery showing of the architect’s work-certainly studied. It wasn’t an unknown. It isn’t the swiss frank. So you think it will be $70M for the couplet. You must be part of the sales team.

  14. Lee –

    A. I haven’t been following the pedestrian bridge project for Gibbs, so I cannot comment on the cost estimate increase except to say that construction hasn’t started on the bridge… isn’t it preferable to have cost estimates rise prior to construction starting so that people have a realistic picture as to the cost and can adjust accordingly?

    B. Where did I say that I thought it would be $70M for the couplet? I said no such thing. The $70M figure appeared in no comments in this entire thread until you just brought it up.

    C. As far as I know, I’m not part of the “sales team.” At least I haven’t received any commission checks lately.

    – Bob R.

  15. Well, my point is that if by chance there are significant cost overruns, this project is going to be hanging around certain people’s necks for a long time. Is this a chance that they want to take?

    I agree that Burnside has to be reconstructed, and the pedestrian situation addressed. Most people know this, so I think it will be much harder to criticize the much cheaper enhanced Burnside option even it runs over.

    Voters in Portland seem to be very cynical lately; just look how Erik just squeaked in for re-election last time. And Sam has already been pegged with the appellation “Sam the Tram.”

  16. OK Lee –

    Spurred by your comments I did some Googling around… according to PDOT’s web site, the project budget is $11 for the bridge and “related access improvements.”

    I found a press release from OHSU regarding the announcement by Rep. Darlene Hooley and Sen. Gordon Smith that they had secured $11 million in funding for the South Waterfront area including $5 million for the bridge and $6 million for “access enhancements, including improvements at district portals and the first phase of the South Portland Circulation Project.”

    From that cursory search, it appears both claims reconcile. The press release is from August of 2005, over a year and a half ago.

    There was also a post over at CommissionerSam that August with both the $11M total figure and the $5M bridge estimate, and a Portland Tribune article from a few days later lists the total $11M figure.

    I tried searching for various permutations of “gibbs” “pedestrian bridge” and “1.6” but could not find any references to your $1.6 million estimate… can you provide a link?

    I could also find no recent articles or web pages mentioning an escalation of the bridge cost from $5M to $11M as you claim… got a link to that info?

    Thanks,
    Bob R.

  17. I heard Lars say on his show that walking from the MAX to the Rose Quarter was very difficult. So, was he lying, being deceitful or both? Most rightwing talk jocks are masters of deceit – deceit meaning not exactly lying but still leading people to believe a lie. So, which is worse – lying or being deceitful? I say being deceitful is worse.

  18. Wells said:
    “I heard Lars say”

    I’m sorry, but that statement is enough to convince me that the opposite is true. If you honestly think there is anything to that argument, you should try it sometime: It is about 500 feet, and no, it is nothing like crossing Burnside.

  19. Lars is an entertainer. He isn’t flying by the seat of his pants. He has market research to help him understand his audience. I suspect that tells him his demographic can be summed up as “angry middle-aged white guys” since that seems to be the demographic for all talk. So he picks up on topics he thinks will feed their anger whether its directed at him or his public foils. It has nothing to do with public policy, politics or the merits of an issue.

  20. Bob R-in updates from PDOT at the past several URAC meetings PDOT’s Greg Jones and others have stated the ped bridge costs are at the $11M level and still possibly climbing. Look it up on the PDC web or call Greg.

    At the South Portland NA meeting in March, Sam the Tram said the $11M bridge cost met that there would not be money “left over” for the SP Circulation Study. He didn’t mention the other “access enhancements, including improvements at district portals and the first phase of SP Circulation Study”. He told the SP NA that they could be part of the decision making to try to reduce the costs of the ped bridge (ha!) so that there might be money for the SP Circulation Study implementation. Nice. Once again, no money for any of the transportation projects of the SoWhat plan.

    The $1.6M ped bridge budget is from the original 1999 Budget and the 2002 Budget. Again, call PDC.

    From your post about the press release from Hooley and Smith, it would seem that maybe there is some misappropriation of federal funds going on. How can PDC take the $11M and use it only on the “$5M dollar bridge” and not the other three projects identified? This is like the recent trolley extension in SoWhat-it was $3M over budget so PDC/PDOT took $3M from the general fund-taxpayers money-to pay for the cost overruns. But who cares? That’s only 35 miles of street repair.

  21. Bob R-in updates from PDOT at the past several URAC meetings PDOT’s Greg Jones and others have stated the ped bridge costs are at the $11M level and still possibly climbing. Look it up on the PDC web or call Greg.

    At the South Portland NA meeting in March, Sam the Tram said the $11M bridge cost met that there would not be money “left over” for the SP Circulation Study. He didn’t mention the other “access enhancements, including improvements at district portals and the first phase of SP Circulation Study”. He told the SP NA that they could be part of the decision making to try to reduce the costs of the ped bridge (ha!) so that there might be money for the SP Circulation Study implementation. Nice. Once again, no money for any of the transportation projects of the SoWhat plan.

    The $1.6M ped bridge budget is from the original 1999 Budget and the 2002 Budget. Again, call PDC.

    From your post about the press release from Hooley and Smith, it would seem that maybe there is some misappropriation of federal funds going on. How can PDC take the $11M and use it only on the “$5M dollar bridge” and not the other three projects identified? This is like the recent trolley extension in SoWhat-it was $3M over budget so PDC/PDOT took $3M from the general fund-taxpayers money-to pay for the cost overruns. But who cares? That’s only 35 miles of street repair.

  22. This is like the recent trolley extension in SoWhat-it was $3M over budget so PDC/PDOT took $3M from the general fund-taxpayers money-to pay for the cost overruns.

    Every Streetcar project has been on-time and on- or under-budget. We did indeed look to TIF to close a funding gap, but not because anything ran over budget.

Leave a Reply

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