Jim Mayer has a stark piece in Sunday’s O about the difficulty of moving between suburbs on transit (with accompanying map [PDF, 2.5M] and analysis of potential solutions).
There’s no denying the problem, but how do we make the economics work for relatively lower-density/ridership routes (or are there high-ridership potential routes)? I was struck by the fact that small transit districts seem to do this better and more economically. Is TriMet burdened with costs that these districts don’t have?
34 responses to “Suburb to Suburb”
Although I am not sure about the concept of Jim Howell’s proposal for a bus ferry, his suggestion for a Washington Square – Clackamas Town Center line, if express service or semi-express limited stop service, is an example of an employment center hub to employment center hub route that would bypass the obsolete downtown centric mindset of TriMet. Park and ride and well as feeder bus service into the local neighborhoods at each end would support this type of service as well as significantly increased transit fares system wide for a user based method to pay for the true price tag of providing a realistic regional transit system.
I’ve always struggled with regional transit districts that are required to serve the entire population and thus provide transit and transit connections between suburbs. This is probably a pretty controversial question, but … why should the transit district be responsible for subsidizing the affordable housing and affordable office space of the suburbs?
If a business wants to locate in Beaverton, it may have a difficult time recruiting employees that live in Gresham. That’s just an issue of distance that a road or bus is just not going to have a good answer to… why should the transit district be burdened with the responsibility of providing a quick connection that may not be financially viable?
About suburban residents… another thing I struggle with. To what degree of transit service does a district need to provide to the suburban population that tends not to want to use public transportation (vs. urban populations) given that there is a finite source of public funds for the transit district?
About suburban residents… another thing I struggle with. To what degree of transit service does a district need to provide to the suburban population that tends not to want to use public transportation (vs. urban populations) given that there is a finite source of public funds for the transit district?
Bottom line – if a transit (or any other governmental body) chooses to collect taxes from someone, it has a legal obligation to serve them.
That means, if TriMet chooses to include cities such as Forest Grove, Cornelius, Sherwood, Tualatin, Tigard, West Linn, Oregon City, etc., that TriMet has a legal obligation to serve them.
Just as many could argue that there are limited funds, why put busses out in those communities, they could just as well turn around and argue that scarse capital funds that could be used to improve bus service (and lower operating costs) are wasted on a light rail (or Streetcar line, which isn’t even a regional service) and neglects the outer communities.
I agree, regional transit agencies probably aren’t the way to go. But until such time that TriMet says that it wants to change its name from the Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon to the Portland Transportation District of Oregon, it has the legal responsibility to serve everyone fairly.
Listen: Just because you work in Beaverton and choose to live on the moon, doesn’t mean you should expect somebody to run a bus there that connects you back to Beaverton.
Right?
I mean, sure, Tri-Met should try to strike a balance between providing cost-effective service, and providing routes that generally connect every major destination in the region with every major population concentration in the region. And these routes should be so set up that you can transfer easily between them, and if you pick a reasonable route, don’t need to spend all day on the bus to get where you need to go.
But, c’mon, Tri-Met can’t be expected to run a shuttle from every little suburb anywhere to every other little suburb anywhere else.
People must be willing to accept the consequences of the choices that they make. And if they choose to live in a tiny suburb, really far away from where they work, with no decent transit options in the middle — well, that’s the choice they made.
Now, I agree that Tri-Met should have a better distributed-node transfer system, such that out in the far ‘burbs, there are still mini-transit centers with pulse-type service that allow people to easily transfer from a bus connecting their tiny suburb into the system, to a bus that goes to another transit center elsewhere, to a bus that goes to their ultimate destination — or MAX/Commuter Rail, if they’re lucky.
But, I think that Tri-Met has already gone a pretty good distance towards this goal. Where exactly are they coming up short? Was this article written as an exercise in “how do we find the worst commutes by Tri-Met”? Or was it written to identify real parts of the region where Tri-Met could realize better ridership by deploying their service in new and creative ways?
A bunch of small transit agencies would make near suburb to suburb commutes easier, sure, (at the expense of the current downtown centric ridership, but that is a different issue.) However, they list the examples of Hillsboro to Tualatin. If instead of TriMet we had a bunch of SMART sized districts, you’d have to go from your house to Hillsboro’s hub, then from Hillsboro’s Hub to Beaverton’s Hub, and then Tigard’s Hub, and then Tualatin’s Hub, and finally to your office. That would likely involve 3 to 5 different buses, and 3 or 4 fares, and I can’t imagine that that would take less than 2 hours…
The people that would be benefited by a bunch of small transit districts are only going a couple miles, and aren’t the examples mentioned in that story.
Erik, I believe part of the reason TriMet exists is to reduce air pollution. Last time I checked, the air pollution problems didn’t suddenly end at Portland city limits, so I’m fairly sure that the people of Tualatin are actually getting benefits from the streetcar. But most of the streetcar is paid for by the city of Portland, TriMet’s share is actually less per person than if they were providing a bus to serve the same riders, and I don’t see you making the same complaints about the #15 that you do about the streetcar, so what exactly is your point?
Bottom line – if a transit (or any other governmental body) chooses to collect taxes from someone, it has a legal obligation to serve them.
Trimet collects taxes from employers no matter where they are located or how much their employees use transit. They spend those funds in the most efficient way possible to serve the whole region, not based on where they collect the funds.
Transit is a public service that is available for everyone to use. That does not mean it serves every trip someone wants to make.
I do think that too much of the alternative transportation debate has been dominated by city residents. The result is that there has not been the progress on suburban development that is needed to make those communities more transit, bike and pedestrian friendly.
For instance, Beaverton, Hillsboro and Gresham all ought to be fareless areas just like downtown Portland. There would be hardly any loss in fares since we are talking about one or two stop jumps that very few people pay for now. But it would enhance the pedestrian environment in those cities. It would also make providing better pedestrian connections a higher priority for local communities.
TriMet should lease some articulated buses and put those to use on suburb-to-suburb test routes, to see whether they are cost-effective or not. TriMet should then publicize those new routes to the degree that it does a new MAX line for example and then see how the ridership is.
Ross said:
For instance, Beaverton, Hillsboro and Gresham all ought to be fareless areas just like downtown Portland. There would be hardly any loss in fares since we are talking about one or two stop jumps that very few people pay for now. But it would enhance the pedestrian environment in those cities. It would also make providing better pedestrian connections a higher priority for local communities.
Totally. Is there any reason that those cities can’t just draw up their own fareless zone boundary, and write TriMet a check every year to cover the fares in that zone just like Portland does? (I mean, besides the fact that Gresham is broke, and Beaverton spends all it’s money on the mayor’s salary…)
Garilyn —
To answer your question, I wasn’t trying to find the worse trimet commutes. The commutes I chose for the map came from the Portland Metro Rideshare market analysis that used census data to find out where workers who commuted more than 10 miles came from. Hillsboro to Tualatin, sherwood to beaverton, and gresham to o.c. were high on the list.
“Erik, I believe part of the reason TriMet exists is to reduce air pollution. ”
False. Trimet exists to provide transportation to people who cannot physically drive or cannot afford to drive or provide their own transportation. Like it or not, it is a form of public welfare.
Also, it has been shown multiple times on this blog and elsewhere that most transit consumes more energy and produces more pollution then a small automobile, as well as costing more to operate. While some of these facts can be debatable, the black soot coming out of tail pipes is not [my car doesn’t do that].
Furthermore, it seems like the mission of transit in Portland this day and age is not to move people, but as a tool in real estate and land development schemes.
If transit in Portland was truly about “moving people” then suburb to suburb service would exist, and traveling through downtown would not be mandatory.
You get the picture about how transit decisions are made when one looks at the decision to extend MAX/LRT into Milwaukie over extending Streetcar at half or less of the cost. The Streetcar route through Sellwood on Milwaukie Street would attract more ridership and get more people out of their cars but that is not the point.
The point is MAX, over anything else no matter how much possible cost saving or how it would reduce peoples need to use cars or even polution reductions. It appears that we must transport people into downtown Portland and make our suburbes more of the bedroom communities that the leaders of Portland want.
I live in Oregon City and we have maybe 80% of all of the housing going in, with people communting 20-miles one way to work. This does not make sense. Transit from Oregon City is joke, so you push out the UGB into our area without industrial lands or jobs and little or NO reasonable transit.
Maybe its time for a recall election where we get new blood at Metro and our local governments. We sure need some new leadership.
We need a recall election to get rid of the whole extra Metro layer all together.
There is no reason why individual cities and counties can’t plan their own land. No metro area in the United States has an entity like Metro.. and for good reason.
Portland centric planning needs to go.
Anthony, yes it is, in fact, that was one of the big reasons the city took over from Rose City Transit. But anyways, I refer you to this:
http://www.trimet.org/pdfs/publications/factsheet.pdf
(Facts about TriMet, first page: “Clean air: Each weekday, MAX eliminates 69,000 car trips off our roads, easing traffic congestion and helping keep our air clean. That adds up to 22.7 million fewer car trips each year. TriMet’s MAX and buses combined eliminate 200,100 daily car trips, or 62.5 million trips each year. In all, TriMet service eliminates about 4.2 tons of smog-producing pollutants each day.)
Jim K admitted that TriMet used less energy than a small car on this thread, the only debate left is about how much less. But I’ve yet to see any evidence to suggest that TriMet produces more pollution per btu than the average car, so if that honestly has been shown a bunch of times, maybe you can point it one of them out to me. And you are right, the, “black soot coming out of tail pipes is not [debatable.]” I haven’t seen any from a bus in about 10 years, and even then, it was only when they were starting up.
False. Trimet exists to provide transportation to people who cannot physically drive or cannot afford to drive or provide their own transportation.
Providing transport to those who cannot physically drive or cannot afford to drive is only one component of what TriMet does. If you are going to claim “false”, please cite a statement from TriMet or from the legislation that authorizes TriMet, which supports your position.
Also, it has been shown multiple times on this blog and elsewhere that most transit consumes more energy and produces more pollution then a small automobile,
Only if you assume that A) if the discretionary riders stopped riding TriMet (as you said, TriMet provides service to those who cannot drive) that the buses would stop running, and B) those discretionary riders would start driving newer, smaller, fuel-efficient cars.
Further, it has been shown (here on this blog and elsewhere) that electric rail transit is even more energy efficient in Portland than the example cheap cars given.
as well as costing more to operate.
Only if you assume that those who can’t drive suddenly don’t need a taxi or a chauffeur.
It has also been widely debated just how many external costs are not accounted for by the owners of automobiles, while the direct subsidies to transit are more easily quantifiable.
While some of these facts can be debatable, the black soot coming out of tail pipes is not [my car doesn’t do that].
TriMet has been installing particulate filters and making other improvements, including blending Bio-Diesel into the fuel. It has been debated that they’ve let the bus fleet grow too old, and I would support more investments in newer bus technology.
Furthermore, it seems like the mission of transit in Portland this day and age is not to move people, but as a tool in real estate and land development schemes.
If by “schemes” you mean that land use planning attempts to place increases in density near transit service, then yes.
If transit in Portland was truly about “moving people” then suburb to suburb service would exist, and traveling through downtown would not be mandatory.
Travelling through downtown is not mandatory. There are many routes which are cross-town, purely suburban, or do not enter downtown. I agree that suburb-to-suburb service can and should be improved.
– Bob R.
It seems to me that suburb-to-suburb service would be a good place to start BRT lines — limited or express buses connecting transit centers and major transfer points, running on HOV lanes or dedicated right-of-way where needed/available. Say, Oregon City-West Linn-Tualatin-Sherwood or Tualatin-Tigard-Washington Square-Beaverton (for example).
LTD (Eugene/Springfield) is doing a lot of work with BRT lines (thier EmX system) and a BRT-light “Bus Plus” program. There’s a lot there that Tri-Met could emulate, including going in with Eugene on the purchase of EmX vehicles.
There might also be benefit to share taxis or jitneys serving a compact and limited geographic area. (Tualatin-Sherwood Jitneys?). Even if subsidized, it might be cheaper and more effective than maintaining scheduled buses making loops on one-hour headways.
Tualatin-Tigard-Washington Square-Beaverton
I think supplementing Washington County Commuter rail with all day bus service between the commuter rail stops might be something to explore.
Let’s look at what TriMet is supposed to do, in the eyes of TriMet.
TriMet’s Strategic Direction (link: http://www.trimet.org/about/organization/strategicdirection.htm )
TriMet is striving to build a safe, comfortable, reliable and innovative transit system that delivers transportation options to our growing region.
A “total transit system” will meet the needs of our current riders and attract new riders. To achieve our goals, we will value the contributions of each employee, engage the public in the decision-making process, expand our service and demonstrate our strong commitment to quality.
Nine principles guide our long-term efforts
Continue to build the total transit system.
Maximize use of existing resources and make capital investments that enhance efficiency and prevent future problems.
Increase ridership.
Focus on service quality.
Demonstrate environmental leadership.
Integrate transportation and land-use goals.
Increase agency diversity by attracting, training and retaining employees who reflect our community.
Maintain strong fiscal controls.
Respond to customer needs.
But most of the streetcar is paid for by the city of Portland, TriMet’s share is actually less per person than if they were providing a bus to serve the same riders, and I don’t see you making the same complaints about the #15 that you do about the streetcar, so what exactly is your point?
The 15-Belmont bus is comparable service (i.e. it’s a bus), with comparable “subsidy” levels, amenities, etc., as offered elsewhere.
The Streetcar is something that the City planned and built, and then passed off to TriMet to fund. Frankly, TriMet should have told the City to pay for it themselves; especially given the city’s lack of willingness to ensure fare collection (not so large a problem on busses).
Providing transport to those who cannot physically drive or cannot afford to drive is only one component of what TriMet does. If you are going to claim “false”, please cite a statement from TriMet or from the legislation that authorizes TriMet, which supports your position.
ORS 267.010:
267.010 Definitions for ORS 267.010 to 267.390. As used in ORS 267.010 to 267.390, unless the context requires otherwise:
(1) “District” means a mass transit district established under ORS 267.010 to 267.390.
(2) “District board” or “board” means the board of directors of a district.
(3) “Mass transit system” or “transit system” means the property, equipment and improvements of whatever nature owned, used, constructed, maintained, controlled or operated to provide mass transportation for passengers or to provide for the movement of people, including park-and-ride stations, transfer stations, parking lots, malls, and skyways, provided that nothing contained herein shall limit the power of a city to exercise its general powers over or provide such stations, lots, malls, or skyways.
(4) “Standard metropolitan statistical area” means an area designated and published by the United States Bureau of the Budget as a standard metropolitan statistical area. [1969 c.643 §1; 1973 c.116 §1]
ORS 267.080:
267.080 Creation of district; district jurisdiction. As provided by ORS 267.010 to 267.390, a mass transit district may be created in any standard metropolitan statistical area for the purpose of providing a mass transit system for the people of the district. Except as otherwise provided in ORS 267.107 (2)(c), the territorial jurisdiction of the district may include all territory within the geographic boundaries of every Oregon county in that standard metropolitan statistical area. [Formerly 267.100]
ORS 267.200:
(267.200 Existence, status and general powers of districts. A mass transit district shall constitute a municipal corporation of this state, and a public body, corporate and politic, exercising public power. It shall be considered a unit of local government for the purposes of ORS 190.003 to 190.130, a public employer for the purposes of ORS 236.610 to 236.640, and a political subdivision for the purposes of ORS 305.620. A district and its contractors engaged in operating motor vehicles to provide mass transportation on behalf of the district shall be entitled to tax refunds as allowed under ORS 319.831 to incorporated cities. It shall have full power to carry out the objects of its formation and to that end may:
(1) Have and use a seal, have perpetual succession, and sue and be sued in its own name.
(2) Acquire by condemnation, purchase, lease, devise, gift or voluntary grant real and personal property or any interest therein, located inside the boundaries of the district and take, hold, possess and dispose of real and personal property purchased or leased from, or donated by, the United States, or any state, territory, county, city or other public body, nonprofit corporation or person for the purpose of providing or operating a mass transit system in the district and aiding in the objects of the district.
(3) Contract with the United States or with any county, city, state, or public body, or any of their departments or agencies, or a nonprofit corporation, or any person, for the construction, acquisition, purchase, lease, preservation, improvement, operation or maintenance of any mass transit system.
(4) Build, construct, purchase, lease, improve, operate and maintain, subject to other applicable provisions of law, all improvements, facilities or equipment necessary or desirable for the mass transit system of the district.
(5) Enter into contracts and employ agents, engineers, attorneys and other persons and fix their compensation.
(6) Fix and collect charges for the use of the transit system and other district facilities.
(7) Construct, acquire, maintain and operate and lease, rent and dispose of passenger terminal facilities, motor vehicle parking facilities and other facilities for the purpose of encouraging use of the mass transit system within the district.
(8) Enter into contracts or intergovernmental agreements under ORS chapter 190 with units of local government of the State of Oregon, whether within or without the district, or with the State of Washington or with public agencies of the State of Washington, to act jointly or in cooperation with them or to provide mass transit services to areas under their jurisdictions, provided that the party contracting to receive the services shall pay to the mass transit district not less than the proportionate share of the cost of the services that the benefits to the contracting party bear to the total benefits from the service.
(9) Conduct programs and events and take other actions for the purpose of improving or maintaining employee relations.
(10) Improve, construct and maintain bridges over navigable streams subject only to ORS 382.125.
(11) Do such other acts or things as may be necessary or convenient for the proper exercise of the powers granted to a district by ORS 267.010 to 267.390. [1969 c.643 §8; 1973 c.116 §3; 1975 c.170 §1; 1977 c.550 §1; 1979 c.344 §1; 1979 c.877 §2; 1987 c.689 §1; 2003 c.802 §92]
ORS 267.240 requires that mass transit agencies provide a program for transportation for persons who are disabled or elderly. ORS 267.320 prohibits mass transit agencies from charging persons over the age of 65 more than 50% fare.
ORS 267.207 specifies district boundaries.
ORS 267.030 requires mass transit agencies to use alternative fuels for operation.
—–
So, very clearly under TriMet’s enabling legislation, providing transportation is paramount; doing so using vehicles that burn alternative fuels is a requirement (which TriMet is clearly in violation of), and TriMet has a responsibility to provide transportation to the elderly and disabled (which is consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act), but this role is not the primary role.
Ross said:
“I think supplementing Washington County Commuter rail with all day bus service between the commuter rail stops might be something to explore.”
I believe, (and I’m having an awful time locating source documents lately, so I can’t remember where I read this,) that there is supposed to be a frequent service line that serves the same stations as the commuter rail, (and runs all the time, not just at rush hour.) Obviously, it stops a bunch of other places along the way too, and it takes a lot longer to make the trip as a result or the stops and the fact that it will have to do things like wait for traffic lights…
The 76 Beaverton-Tualatin bus is supposed to go to Frequent Service, and the 78 is going to become a Washington Square-Lake Oswego bus (and probably receive a new number).
First of all I would like to note that:
a) the driving times in the graphic may or may not be achievable
b) the TriMet routings appeared to be longer then need be (the trip planner can spit out itineraries that aren’t optimal, especially when given specific times)–the one from Gresham to Oregon City went way over to Milwaukie (instead of down 82nd) and another one went through Portland instead of taking the 76/78.
c) all of the trips would be able to use either Washington County Commuter Rail or I-205 MAX (though there are certainly trips that won’t, such as Tualatin-Oregon City).
d) with the transit union in control, operators doing small-scale local service such as the Cedar Mill Shuttle must be compensated as if they were on Line 72.
But there is a real solution to traffic problems, especially in the suburbs: simply charging drivers and developers for what they use and cause. If people had to pay for more of their parking, pollution clean-up (think Big Pipe), oil defense or road use, they would re-consider traveling such long distances and doing it in such an in-efficient way (their own, relatively empty vehicles).
Likewise, developers/businesses/home buyers should have to pay for the true cost of lower-density development. Transit, roads, water pipes, sewer pipes, electricity lines, cable TV lines, telephone lines, trash haulers, mail carriers, delivery vehicles and other infrastructure/services all have to travel farther to reach the same amount of people in lower-density areas and if the extra costs were billed directly to them, we would have denser development where transit could actually work.
Question: what’s the deal with bus drivers announcing that Trimet is hiring 200 new bus drivers by the end of the year? I’ve heard it about 5 or 6 times now in the past week. Any truth to this?
They are extremely short handed. You must not have had the joy of waiting for your bus or MAX only to find that it isn’t coming and never left the garage that morning because they are short handed. Last wednesday I saw a man whom I know to be a supervisor operating a Yellow Line, presumably on overtime. Starting out as a mini-runner where you only work 5-6 hours per day at 11 something an hour, but are away from home for 10-12, is just so enticing isn’t it?
Likewise, developers/businesses/home buyers should have to pay for the true cost of lower-density development. Transit, roads, water pipes, sewer pipes, electricity lines, cable TV lines, telephone lines, trash haulers, mail carriers, delivery vehicles and other infrastructure/services all have to travel farther to reach the same amount of people in lower-density areas and if the extra costs were billed directly to them, we would have denser development where transit could actually work.
That’s why there are tradeoffs in living in lower density areas.
For example, lower density areas don’t have MAX.
Meanwhile, those things cost great amounts of money, that are not bourne strictly by those who use or have access to it, so that those in the “lower density” areas are effectively subsidizing those things as well.
Private entities, like cable TV systems, phone companies, electric utilities, can charge more, but the PUC and other regulatory agencies have largely chose that people should pay the same for the same level of service. Just as there is the debate over Verizon and Qwest trying to enter the Cable TV business, and the regulatory bodies demanding that those companies don’t pick the “rich neighborhoods” and leave the “poor neighborhoods” behind.
As for “Big Pipe”, that has nothing to do with suburbs, and a large part of the fact that the downtown Portland core has no natural drainage areas – and that the EPA doesn’t want the storm runoff going into the Willamette River. My neighborhood has plenty of natural drainage areas where it doesn’t run off into nearby rivers, and plenty of exposed landscaping (instead of block after block of asphalt and building). Fortunately, Big Pipe is being paid for by the City of Portland, but to suggest that the low density suburbs should pay for it is downright wrong.
By the way, I work for a power company. If you want to string a power line to your distant, “low density” subdivision, we’ll be happy to send you a bill for it, payable up front before construction starts. Did Homer Williams reimburse the city and the State of Oregon (for SoWa improvements to I-5 and Macadam) for all of the costs in upgrading existing infrastructure (water, sewer lines, and streets) to support his neighborhoods?
Aylene Said: “I’ve always struggled with regional transit districts that are required to serve the entire population and thus provide transit and transit connections between suburbs. This is probably a pretty controversial question, but … why should the transit district be responsible for subsidizing the affordable housing and affordable office space of the suburbs?”
Why should transit be subsidized into downtown Portland? Or why should streetcar systems be built with subsidies as a so-called development tool to further subsidize wealthy developers? Why should the City of Portland hand out property tax abatements like candy to those same developers while Multnomah County is struggling financially to provide services?
In reality, none of these subsidies should exist. Downtown Portland has been unable to stand on its own two feet and receives far more taxpayer subsidies than any suburb. Transit users should pay the true costs of providing the service and developers should not be subsidized just because they comply with some political mindset. If there is a need to help out low income people, then a separate funding mechanism should be set up designed specifically to meet their transport and housing needs.
As for living on the moon and working say in Beaverton; for the most part people can not and do not always have a choice related to the location of their employment. Moving a household every time a person’s place of employment is relocated is impractical. Often times one member of a household may work close in while another member may be employed across town.
First of all, the list of potential solutions is here And TriMet is (I think) burdened with providing high compensation. They also pay for lobbying, side projects such as helping with Google Transit and, yes, rail lines. But it should also be noted that the small districts are increasingly charging fares.
“Big Pipe” has nothing to do with suburbs
I didn’t mean to say it did. I was listing road subsidies there but I do see the confusion. And for that matter, suburban roads and parking lots do generate polluted runoff.
we’ll be happy to send you a bill for it
Honestly, I don’t know how much of the costs of new development are borne specifically by the development. But it just doesn’t seem to make economic sense to build at lower densities seeing that it requires more infrastructure. Or maybe we need to look at how we tax our land.
Did Homer Williams reimburse the city and the State of Oregon
I don’t know, but especially if we got rid of suburban subsidies, I would be very open to requiring him to do so. Same goes with ending the subsidies that Terry listed (which I believe are used to compete with the suburbs).
Some of Sound Transit’s ST Express routes are suburb to suburb, but they have failed. ROute 585 was a Lakewood-Auburn route bypassing Downtown Tacoma, it no longer runs. We also have suburb to outlying neighborhoods of big cities routes, like 555 Issaquah-Northgate, that mainly runs during peak hours. Also there was the 505 that went from Everett to Northgate, it failed. Seems from Snohomish County, the travel patterns go to either the U-District or Downtown. SOme routes that are working include the Puyallup-Bellevue route, although the cities along I-405 between Tukwilla and Everett could hardly be called suburbs anymore, some of them are large, and have booming business developments. They are more like Edge Cities.
I noticed in Chicago that METRA is building a new Suburb to Suburb commuter rail line. It is there first.
Honestly, I don’t know how much of the costs of new development are borne specifically by the development. But it just doesn’t seem to make economic sense to build at lower densities seeing that it requires more infrastructure. Or maybe we need to look at how we tax our land.
Generally speaking – if you develop it you will pay for it.
True, there are some “subsidies”, cities/counties (particularly in Washington and Clackamas Counties, the developing areas are not within city limits and therefore paid for by the respective counties, and I believe same is true in Clark County) might install the collector streets, new intersections, or water/sewer mains, but generally speaking the developers also have to pitch in on this too.
The big difference between the suburbs and their “subsidies” and SoWa/Pearl and their “subsidies” is that:
1. Suburban developments don’t get tax breaks/credits/deferrals. They pay taxes from day 1.
2. Homeowners who buy in the ‘burbs don’t get tax breaks. They pay taxes from day 1.
3. No one pays for suburban developers to build. There is no “Beaverton Development Commission”. Nor do the cities buy land and sell it at a loss.
4. The suburbs don’t come up with elaborate transit schemes that have to be paid for by the region, unlike Portland. That’s clearly evident in Tualatin, which despite its phenominal growth, has seen no growth in TriMet service; while Portland has put the entire region on the hook for Streetcar service, essentially a subsidy to the rich and don’t need a subsidy.
We could fix the issue and eliminate all subsidies altogether, and let the marketplace decide what they want. The problem is, that’d probably kill off downtown, and we wouldn’t want that, now would we? But those who are getting the subsidies are complaining that other neighborhoods are getting subsidies too…
Meanwhile there are people (myself included) that pay my fair share of taxes and don’t get any tax breaks, have to pay for my parking lot/street maintenance, have lived in an area that’s been developed for years (and without tax break at the time), next to a road that was built in the 1930s, and have poor transit service. Yet I pay more in taxes (per dollar assessed value) than someone in the Pearl/SoWa because they have a tax break. Is that fair?
Suburb-suburb lines should be one part of a strategy to upgrade and convert the ‘burbs to actual dense, urban mixed-use areas:
-schools
-parks
-more housing
-etc
If the burbs are restricted and locked into a purely auto-centric lifestyle, then that is what will prevail.
The cul de sac street patterns might have been great sales pitches for suburban developers, but they are centered around the use of the Auto. Now maybe this might be a market for Dial-a-Ride and Jitneys, but I would doubt any fixed-route service using even a 30ft bus would be able to maneuver around them. Now one of the I405 Edge Cities, Renton, has a sales pitch called “Ahead of the Curve”, and they seem to be attracting dense development around Downtown, and Boeing streamlining production and ending the 757 production freed up a lot of room near Coulon Park. Unfortunately it is being targeted for big box retail, and a sports arena, and is astride a rail line facing railbanking and rip-up for trail use, even though it is 100ft wide in some places, and goes all the way to linking up with the BNSF Stevens Pass route at Snohomish. Would have made for a good commuter rail loop like I-405 and I-5 made for automobiles. Unfortunately it may not even be a trail, as there is one major opponent on the King County Council of that deal. The chairman! The deal involves the Port of Seattle buying the rail line, and trading it to King County for King County International Airport, aka Boeing Field. The Council Chair’s district is right in the flightpath for even the least-imposing approach to the airport. THe Port wants the airport to take a competitor to Sea-Tac off the radar, and maybe as a 4th Runway for Sea-Tac when this Third Runway proves to be too little, too late.
1. Suburban developments don’t get tax breaks/credits/deferrals. They pay taxes from day 1.
2. Homeowners who buy in the ‘burbs don’t get tax breaks. They pay taxes from day 1.
3. No one pays for suburban developers to build. There is no “Beaverton Development Commission”. Nor do the cities buy land and sell it at a loss.
So what? The property taxes are higher in the city to pay for the higher level of services provided. Why should anyone who lives in the burbs care how those taxes are spent? They aren’t paying them.
Suburban developments don’t get tax breaks/credits/deferrals
Maybe not. But there are things that they can’t be required to pay/provide for–like schools, libraries, police stations or fire stations. And while this doesn’t directly encourage development to be lower-density, it does encourage new development vs. building in areas (i.e. Portland) that already have enough schools, etc. See 1000 Friends’ view
Basically, it might be suburbs paying for (some) new infrastructure vs. the city paying for use of existing infrastructure. And let me make it clear that, especially without the former, I do not necessarily support the latter (even though the Pearl and SoWa are great uses of land and the streetcar is successful) and hope that it wouldn’t be needed.