“Toward Car Free Cities VIII” a world-wide conference on reducing auto-dependence has selected Portland as its 2008 venue (mid-June 2008).
The local host is Shift (Shift your thinking to bikes), a member of the world carfree network [contrary to the name, the organization is not about the abolition of cars, just a reduction in reliance on them]. I’ve been asked to be a member of the local advisory committee, and attended the first meeting yesterday.
The theme for the conference is “Proximity” (the theme for edition VII – to be held in a few months in Instanbul – is “Building a Livable Future in a Changing Climate”).
We expect a big attendance draw from Cascadia and northern California. I’m interested in suggestions on how/where we might promote this locally and who we might solicit as interesting speakers on the topic of Proximity?
Please share your suggestions. I’ll keep you posted as the conference gets fleshed out.
63 responses to ““Toward Car Free Cities” Heads Toward Portland”
Interesting. Cities were really built with people in mind up until Henry Ford mass produced the automobile, after that everything changed. Just look at this region, the Oregon Electric Railway went absolutely everywhere! It even went up to where Highway 26 and Cornelius Pass Rd are right now, which back then would have been considered the boonies. Its too bad we can’t revive the complete system.
Find the religious community leaders that are talking about climate change and environmental issues.
As an example, our choir is singing “Words of Chief Seattle” in a few weeks.
“All things are connected …”
Ray Whitford
the Oregon Electric Railway went absolutely everywhere! It even went up to where Highway 26 and Cornelius Pass Rd are right now, which back then would have been considered the boonies. Its too bad we can’t revive the complete system.
Not just the OE, but the Southern Pacific’s Red Electric, and the various interurbans that went out east. “Sprawl” was happening back in the 1910s and 1920s – it’s not a new thing.
Commuter trains actually ran from Portland to Oswego (now downtown Lake Oswego) into the 1920s. The Red Electric went from Portland to Corvallis, via McMinnville (via either Beaverton, Hillsboro, Forest Grove, Gaston, Yamhill and Carlton, or via Lake Oswego, Tualatin, Sherwood, Newberg, Dundee and Lafayette). The Oregon Electric went from Portland to Eugene (via Garden Home, Tigard, Tualatin, Wilsonville, Salem, Albany) with a branch from Garden Home to Forest Grove (via Beaverton, Elmonica, Orenco and Hillsboro).
I’ve proposed that the OE line from Portland to Tualatin should be re-established as a MAX line but it’s been pooh-poohed by those who want to placate the auto population by making MAX essentially nothing more than a parking lot shuttle from Barbur Blvd TC to downtown Portland (talk about irony). Other parts of the OE are part of MAX (from Beaverton Central to Hillsboro) or to be Washington County Commuter Rail (from Tigard to Wilsonville). From Tigard to Beaverton was part of the Red Electric system, although it wasn’t used for passenger trains (the Red Electric shops were located near where the 5th Street railroad crossing is in Beaverton, and the line connected the two routes.)
Part of the Eastside MAX line is built on one of the old interurban lines to Gresham. And much of the Portland Traction Company’s Boring line is now the Springwater Trail Corridor.
By the 1920s, Oregon was one of the first states to enact a gas tax and built U.S. Highway 99. Busses replaced the Red Electric and Oregon Electric, after patronage dropped. The busses later disappeared too. In fact the Greyhound route that once connected Portland and San Francisco, via the Oregon Coast (until a few years ago) was a direct descendant of Southern Pacific’s rail service that was replaced by bus service, that was later sold to Greyhound.
When people want examples of communities built around transit, they need only look at the past, not only in Portland but all over the country. With gas prices and all, I really hope we can do the same in the future. I don’t know, I just can’t envision us still powered by oil in 40 or 50 years.
Since when have comments “become the property of Portland Transport”? Here’s a comment Portland Transport can lay claim to: “personally directed comment removed.”
I don’t believe Shift to Bikes has much expertice in nor even much respect for transit design. Nor do they really understand land-use and development theory, whereby carfree districts may evolve. They’re a bunch of spoiled youngsters/stoners who’d rather be coddled with effusive praise. “Hey, how ya like doin, like? Oh wow, totally like, cool, dude, wow.” To accept constructive criticism, particularly from anyone over 30, just isn’t in their nature. So, let them prove this assessment wrong. We shall see.
The “comments become the property…” has been there ever since we put the site under a creative commons license, more than a year ago. We can’t license publication of the comments unless we have the rights to them.
Actually at some point we’ll change that so you grant us a non-exclusive license. That we both Portland Transport and the commenter will have full rights to use them.
As to SHIFT, I can’t say that’s my experience of the organization at all. They have a strong point of view, that’s for sure, but they are thoughtful, energetic and committed.
“I just can’t envision us still powered by oil in 40 or 50 years.”
I still think it would be a good idea to look into other alternatives for oil, too. I don’t think the much touted “bio-fuel” is a very good alternative because it would take productive farmland for growing fuel. I don’t understand why the various groups aren’t looking into completely electric cars that are plugged in and recharged. Buses should have overhead wires to power them and use that system when in the inner city and their diesel engines out in the suburbs. Why is the ‘solution’ they’re always pushing so hard is more tiny, slow trains?
Buses should have overhead wires to power them and use that system when in the inner city and their diesel engines out in the suburbs. Why is the ‘solution’ they’re always pushing so hard is more tiny, slow trains?
Show me an electric trolleybus which is both larger and capable of operating faster than a light rail train.
Thanks,
Bob R.
“Show me an electric trolleybus which is both larger and capable of operating faster than a light rail train.”
Show me an electric train that is cheaper and more versatile and can go more places without costing a billion dollars to implement.
Greg –
You dodged the question. It was you who raised the possibility of buses powered by overhead wires as an alternative to “tiny, slow trains”.
So, where are the electric buses which are both bigger and faster than trains?
In answer to your 2nd question: Streetcars.
You’re welcome,
Bob R.
What a streetcar often offers over a bus system is rebuilt sidewalks. A carfree district needs the best, widest sidewalks. Also, the bus capability to pull out of a traffic lane isn’t needed if the object is to create a car-free district. It won’t someone from Shift who’ll come up with these sort of ideas. They’re more into cob street furniture.
Show me an electric trolleybus which is both larger and capable of operating faster than a light rail train.
That’s not the point.
Trolleybusses (as used in Vancouver, BC, Seattle and San Francisco) have certain advantages, such as electric traction (as opposed to diesel fuel) and better performance, particularly on hills.
They aren’t designed for speed (their top speed is something around 35 MPH) and they offer no capacity advantage over a standard bus.
Show me an electric train that is cheaper and more versatile and can go more places without costing a billion dollars to implement.
Again, not the point. LRT and Trolleybus serve two different markets.
LRT is high capacity point-to-point transport. Trolleybus is electrified bus. We couldn’t use MAX to completely replicate a bus line, would we? Look at what happens downtown on Morrison/Yamhill and 1st or on Holladay when MAX closely replicates bus service. People don’t use MAX for speed.
What a streetcar often offers over a bus system is rebuilt sidewalks. A carfree district needs the best, widest sidewalks.
Since when were streetcars and sidewalks one and the same? Anyone can build good sidewalks without any form of transit. Look at the Tualatin Commons? Excellent sidewalks everywhere, very little public transit. Bridgeport? Lots of sidewalks, little transit.
A “car free city” isn’t going to be fixed by a simple solution like more bikes, more bike paths, more sidewalks, more streetcars, it’s going to take a massive reinvestment in our social structure.
That means massive changes in housing availablity, and (gulp!) AFFORDABLE HOUSING for all in the “car free zone”. If housing is only available for one segment (as is in the Pearl) then everyone else is going to have to drive.
Once housing is available, jobs have to be available – again for all people. For certain jobs that aren’t desirable in that area (i.e. manufacturing jobs) then fast, efficient travel has to be made to industrial zones. This factor is SORELY MISSING in Portland; there are few if any transit routes serving industrial areas; and those that do exist are of limited usefulness.
Erik –
You and I are in agreement about the differences between ETBs, streetcars, and light rail vehicles.
I asked the “show me” question in response to Greg’s assertion that trolleybuses would be far better than “tiny, slow trains”.
I haven’t kept up with the latest in ETB technology (please point me to a model if you know of one), but it occurs to me that they would be more easily adopted if they had the following attributes:
1. Low-floor boarding
2. Battery power sufficient to go just a few blocks to get around dead spots, accidents, and dewiring incidents. (It may just be my bad luck, but it seems every time I’m in San Francisco I have the opportunity to see a trolleybus come off the wires, and the driver has to go outside and use an insulated pole to get things righted.)
3. In reference to dewiring, an automated rewiring system that can be activated and monitored by the driver from inside the bus.
#2 and #3 would go a long way to reducing schedule and service interruptions.
ETBs are great for hilly neighborhoods with tight curbs, and especially hilly residential areas where quieter operation is desirable.
– Bob R.
Of the Pearl District’s 4000 or so new apartments, around 800 are subsidized below market rate. What gives the Pearl an advantage is its mix of uses, its storefront shops which can respond to market changes. If the boutique shop market doesn’t pan out, the storefront shops can convert to serve those of more modest means. If the boutique shop market falls, so too will market housing rates fall. Odds are the Pearl will continue economically balanced because if the overall economy suffers, the Pearl’s residents can cut back on how much they spend on their cars.
In the area where the Portland Streetcar succeeds, access to all kinds of jobs, all kinds of housing, entertainment, open parkspace, medical services, etc, justifies the subsidized expense.
Hey,
I was just “thinking out loud” here. My idea was a hybrid trolley/traditional bus that could run on wires in the congested areas and run on fuel elsewhere. This would solve the emissions problem and offer flexibility that the trains do not. I am not completely anti-train, in fact, I have used the Amtrak a LOT lately between PDX and SLM. I really LIKE that kind of train a lot and wish they would have more frequent service along the entire Eugene – Vancouver coridor. Another thing I’ve wondered is why they don’t double-decker the buses and MAX/streetcar, especially in peak times? It seems the MAX is either overly crowded or barely crowded enough.
I haven’t kept up with the latest in ETB technology (please point me to a model if you know of one), but it occurs to me that they would be more easily adopted if they had the following attributes:
Coast Mountain Bus (the bus operator for Vancouver, BC) has on order 188 New Flyer 40′ low floor trolleybusses and 40 60′ articulated low floor trolleybusses.
King County Metro does not operate any low floor trolley busses (yet) but does have low floor hybrid busses (not trolley).
The technology is just waiting for TriMet to get their hands on, but TriMet seems to have zero interest in developing or pursuing anything unless it’s rail based. However since Metro seems to think Vancouver, BC is the “way of the future” – it’s too bad that all of Metro’s brightest minds didn’t even take one look at Vancouver’s diverse bus system.
Of the Pearl District’s 4000 or so new apartments, around 800 are subsidized below market rate.
What that means is that 20% of the Pearl’s apartments (not total housing, just apartments), are earmarked for the “poor” – those earning below poverty level, and receive federal assistance.
80% of the Pearl’s apartments are at “market rate” which is what Homer Williams, not the market overall, defines. $1300 is not “market rate” for a two bedroom apartment.
ZERO owner-occupied housing is “affordable”.
By “affordable”, I mean by a two adult, one or two child family, earning a household income of between $60 and $100K. If I don’t qualify for food stamps, TANF, etc. – I can’t live in any of those “below market rate apartments” so that doesn’t help me, or many of Portland’s middle class – one bit.
Since I don’t see any new developments occuring in North Portland that can be defined as a “car-free neighborhood”, I stand by my statement that Portland’s track is failing those who cannot afford Pearl District housing, and therefore Portland MUST invest in transportation options (including more and wider freeways) to accomodate those individuals who must work in Portland, but have been priced out of the market and must drive from outside the core to reach employment and home in the evenings.
My idea was a hybrid trolley/traditional bus that could run on wires in the congested areas and run on fuel elsewhere
Actually Seattle used to have them – the “long distance” routes ran on trolley overhead in the Metro Tunnel, switched to diesel engine for the routes out (often out I-90). I believe they have been all retired or converted to 100% trolley operation for central core routes.
(refer to http://transit.metrokc.gov/am/vehicles/breda-trolley.html)
Another thing I’ve wondered is why they don’t double-decker the buses and MAX/streetcar
Are you talking double-decker as in bi-level?
Don’t think it’d work on MAX, due to the clearance with the catenary. But it’s obiviously doable if the catenary were high enough; in fact the Oregon Electric Railroad Museum in Brooks has a double-decker streetcar from Hong Kong.
(refer to: http://www.trainweb.org/oerhs/roster/hongkong_12.htm)
They also have a London double-decker:
(refer to: http://www.trainweb.org/oerhs/roster/blackpool_48.htm)
In fact I once joked that the WST route should be replaced with a double-decker diesel railcar that is used on some routes in Germany! (At least it’d eliminate that annoying “generator” car that has to be towed behind…
(refer to: http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/de/diesel/dmu/670/pix.html)
Now, double-decker busses. I actually received my latest issue of Metro Magazine last week and there is an ad for an Alexander-Dennis double-decker bus.
(refer to: http://www.alexander-dennis.com/enviro500/enviro_500.htm)
Now, this is something I could get behind, but there are some technical issues that would need to be addressed (these are real issues, unlike TriMet’s “arguments” to deploy low floor busses which TriMet themselves have proven absolutely wrong, yet insist by it):
1. Most traffic signals in London are not mounted overhead, but on pedestals alongside the street. (Similar to the traffic lights on Morrison/Yamhill Streets where MAX operates). So on any route that a double-decker bus operates, every traffic signal would have to be replaced, and American drivers are used to looking up for a signal (especially in Oregon, where side mounted traffic lights are uncommon. Even in Montana, there was usually one light mounted to the side in an overhead assembly.)
2. Overhead utility lines. Again, such is rare in Europe but common here. Particularly in the “older” parts of Portland (i.e. Hawthorne, Belmont) there are a lot of overhead utilites that would have to be undergrounded, and at significant expense. (I know Pacific Power doesn’t underground utilites for free, and I’m sure PGE doesn’t either. Nor does the City’s franchise with those utilities require it.)
3. Trees that grow over streets may need to be removed to provide for clearance. This would be politically difficult to do.
4. They are not compatible with either the Broadway, Steel or Hawthorne Bridges. Nor would they fit through the low overpasses or tunnels on the west approach to the Ross Island Bridge. That restricts any double-decker bus to use either the Morrison or Burnside Bridges. (If the Sellwood Bridge were rebuilt, a double-decker wouldn’t fit in the Macadam Avenue underpass under I-5 outbound, so it would have to run through SoWa. And then it would have a problem with clearances for the Streetcar overhead.)
5. Even downtown, double-decker bus routes would have to be designed so as to not cross a MAX or Streetcar line. That would restrict to something that ends on 4th/5th Avenues between the Morrison and Burnside Bridges
I know that there are some sightseeing bus operators in New York City that operate double-deckers, but otherwise they are difficult at best to find in the U.S. Maybe, a double-decker could work on the 15 line (except for having to cross underneath both the MAX and Streetcar lines), but I’m at a loss to find another route where a double-decker would work, and is warranted. And I’m not in favor of more transit investment in an area that already got the Streetcar
Of course, if we had true commuter rail (from Portland to Seattle), most likely the trains would use double-decker coaches from Bombardier (the same as Sound Transit, West Coast Express (hey, another Vancouver, BC thing that Metro conveniently overlooks!), MetroLink, Coaster, and most all other commuter rail agencies.)
(refer to: http://www.soundtransit.org/x4305.xml and http://www.bombardier.com/en/1_0/1_1/1_1_3_1_5.jsp)
TriMet could have ordered bi-level DMUs for the Washington County Commuter Rail line, but obiviously there isn’t the demand for it… (Oh, yeah, and TriMet ran out of money for the project, that’s why they had to cut the order from five single-level cars to four… So they’d only be able to afford two double-decker DMUs – and if one broke, then half of the possible ridership would be told “TriMet, see where it doesn’t take you.”)
Has anybody ever petitioned TriMet to implement Bus Rapid Transit?
Greg T. – excellent ideas regarding the trolleybuses. I, too would like to see some in Portland… would be great for the downtown bus mall and places like Sandy Blvd or close-in Portland, where the reduced pollution and particularly the noise reduction would make things 100 times better. Note that a lot of trolleybuses in Seattle and Vancouver also have a diesel engine… these could run on biodiesel as well (bonus environmental points – maybe even diesel/electric?).
Erik H. – I agree mostly with your definitions with the transit options, however, it occurs to me that light rail and streetcar service aren’t defined so well. Irrespective of the types of vehicles they use, the type of service (frequency, distance travelled, speed, and capacity are more important) is the defining characteristic.
Historically, streetcars were used in the US in a linear service corridor, not point-point service. I would be curious to see how closely spaced those stops actually were, but from what I have read, the old trams weren’t particularly fast… maybe 20 mph max?
Light rail, on the other hand, seems to replicate interurban service more, although with the flexibility of also being able to act as a streetcar.
True point-point rail service, from what I have read, is defined as a metro – high-speed, high-capacity, frequent service (every 90 seconds in Moscow, for instance), achieved primarily by dedicated transit corridors ala grade separation from other modes of travel. This is obviously very expensive… although they are building a mini-metro in Vancouver, called the ‘Canada Line.’
Since the old interurbans and trams – parallel to today’s lightrail and streetcar, respectively; were the main transit systems to create the city/suburban development model, what is more appropriate for lower-density parts of the metropolitan area?
A subway, on the other hand, would find itself appropriately placed in a place like the Lloyd Center or Downtown Portland.
We, as a region, just don’t have the balls yet to finance these kinds of full network-oriented systems. Stockholm, for instance, a metro area of 1.6 million (600,000 fewer than Portland), has 7 SUBWAY lines – 143km worth!
I think that in high-volume transit corridors (205, Barbur, 26, 217, Hall Blvd, 84, etc), metro-like rail systems intersecting frequent bus service would work excellently to knit the region together and give infinitely better transit service to link the burbs with the city.
Oh, and one thing I read in the news recently… Seattle is getting double-decker buses:
http://tinyurl.com/2k8tbm
At 80 seats, they are better than articulated ones… we should get these for Powell and Division!
Back to comment one; Ed, you should read the famous “Streetcar Suburbs.” Actually, every mode of transportation has produced responses in residential terms. The book mentioned above examines the first wave of “suburbanization” in Boston following the Streetcar (not motorcar). Similarly, the “mainline” suburbs in Philadelphia followed the train line, not auto highways.
This isn’t a comment pro or anti-car, just a note that it isn’t factual to blame only the automobile for suburbanization. part of it is a product of government policies and subsidies.
But it’s naive to ignore a long historical tradition in the United States of a desire for more space and privacy that may make comparisons to Europe problematic.
For my own part, I think just as likely as the “car-less” city is a completely different alternative, radically decentralized population centers made up of small to medium sized cities (which have always ranked higher on many quality of life measures); lots of telecommuting; and heavy reliance on short trip automobiles powered by electricity.
Paul, did you happen to catch City Club on Friday? If not, I’d suggest grabbing the MP3 file. The speaker said the trend is for a lot MORE cities of 500K and greater population. Is that what you mean when you say “small and medium sized”?
I find it interesting that “alternative” transportation/ planning supporters tend to blame suburbanization on things such as social engineering [government subsidy], and those evil cars.
Although it may seem that something is “forcing” people to live in the suburbs and rely on a car, I think it has more to do with a popular lifestyle choice.
A moderate sized home with a considerable yard on a low traffic street — detached from commercial areas is most desirable in this day and age. A car in this situation makes sense– not only as a necessary tool but also as a status symbol [thank capitalism]. A 16 year old aspires to get their drivers license and their first car– not a bus pass. And many people want to live as far away as possible from where they work.
The evidence of this can be found by looking at cities without growth controls. Clark County, Washington is one of the most “sprawling” counties in the US– in part because they absorb much of the outward “sprawl” that Portland planning prohibits.
We have a bus stop 4 blocks from our house and plenty of bike lanes, yet we choose to drive to our destination. I will even drive 8 blocks to the store just to pick up a bottle of water. Why? Because I want to. I like the comfort of my car, the heat & air conditioning, and the 2500W sound system that can’t be found in ipod headphones. I get plenty of physical activity at the gym and at work.
You know the reason most people support rail transit is the false promise that it will reduce congestion– to get everyone else off the road– and that is why it will never work.
The cities were once full of people who were forced to live there because of economic reasons. When it was economically feasible to move away– most everyone did [and it started with the privately financed streetcars]. It doesn’t make sense to push people back to the cities.
A moderate sized home with a considerable yard on a low traffic street — detached from commercial areas is most desirable in this day and age.
By some people, certainly. But in fact this is pretty much THE ONLY THING that was produced during the last four or five decades (largely due to Federal policy). Lifestyles and demographics are changing. Clearly folks who are paying north of $300/sq. ft. in the Pearl (more in SoWa) value something else.
Putting public infrastructure dollars into some alternatives does not seem so radical. There are lots of suburban houses still being built in places like Bethany (granted, the yards are smaller than in the past).
A simple and cheap bus should be fine for people living in the Pearl… although I have a hard time believing someone who can afford a $300/sq.ft. home would be riding transit. Or maybe it is for the single couple living in a $800/month “affordable” studio?
You want car free? Take away all but a few parking spaces from the Pearl [garages & subsidized on-street parking] and see how “desirable” the Pearl becomes. Since that type of living is so “desirable,” go ahead and pull all of the tax waiver and “affordable housing” schemes while your at it.. and then see what happens.
Funny thing is– housing in Bethany doesn’t require massive public spending on trams and streetcars, nor does it need a “big pipe,” tax waivers, “affordable housing,” or “on street parking.” Shoot– I am willing to bet that the Bethany area could manage without any bike lanes or park and rides.
Funny thing is– housing in Bethany doesn’t require massive public spending
Oh, if were only so. In fact, North Bethany, brought into the UGB several years ago, has seen no development because Washington County can’t find the dollars (i.e., subsidy) to build sewers and roads. Gresham just went into debt big time to finance infrastructure for its new development areas.
Erik said:
“80% of the Pearl’s apartments are at “market rate” which is what Homer Williams, not the market overall, defines. $1300 is not “market rate” for a two bedroom apartment.
…
By “affordable”, I mean by a two adult, one or two child family, earning a household income of between $60 and $100K. If I don’t qualify for food stamps, TANF, etc. – I can’t live in any of those “below market rate apartments” so that doesn’t help me, or many of Portland’s middle class – one bit.”
Well, I don’t know what market rate is for a 2 bedroom apartment is right now, but I do know how to do math: $1300/month for 12 months is $15600/year. If you make $60k, that is 26% of your income, (and if you make $100k, it is 15.6% of your income,) which is considered quite affordable. (I know back when I was renting, 33% was considered acceptable, with 40% considered too high.)
But I think a little table might be useful here:
Incomes of households in Portland broken down by class in 2005 dollars, from ACS [census] data
(The bottom 20% of the households are considered poor, the next 20% lower class, then…)
(These numbers are approximate, you have to do a little math to pull them out of that table.)
Poor: 0-21k
Lower Class: 21k-39k
Lower Middle: 39k-61k
Upper Middle: 61k-94k
Upper: 94k+
If you are really making that much money, you are upper middle class, so you really have no right to be complaining about the pearl, you are the target income for the area. Now, people at all income levels have money problems, don’t get me wrong, but ones in your income bracket aren’t going to be fixed by metro, they are simply a result of you spending more than you take in.
Oh thats weird.. I thought they had system development charges on new construction for things like roads and sewers..
I guess if they would have spent that money on roads and sewers in the first place then there wouldn’t be an issue.
The SDCs do not cover 100% of the costs (I’m not even sure they get to 50%). Such is the power of the homebuilder’s lobby.
With all that said, I’d like a shot at living a carfree city in the US. As we mature as a society I and learn to appreciate livablility over mobility, I’d like to believe I and others will eventually have that option.
A moderate sized home with a considerable yard on a low traffic street — detached from commercial areas is most desirable in this day and age.
Desirable to who?
Most people have kids at home who will use a yard to play in for about 15 years. A lot of them decide large yards are more trouble than they are worth the rest of their lives.
And many others figure a close by park will work just as well. When they balance that large yard against long commutes in heavy traffic, they decide city living, close to work, is “desirable”.
I suspect many people, given a job, would live in the mountains, or on the coast or out in eastern Oregon nowhere near Portland. Certainly the number of people who choose that in retirement would indicate that it is a desirable option. The problem is there are no jobs, most of those places, or very few. So if you are still working, you have to choose to live where these is work, which is mostly in a city.
The question is not what is most desirable, but what people can afford. Most people would find a nicer house desirable, if they could afford it. A nicer car, if they could afford it. Nicer clothes, if they could afford them. etc.
Suburban development was heavily subsidized by tax dollars. Those subsidies made the choice of a large new house in the suburbs with a large lot more desirable. The FHA rules that were designed to exclude most existing housed from eligibility for low cost government loans made that house in the suburbs more desirable. Those brand new un-tolled expressways, called “free”ways, made those houses in the suburbs more desirable.
1000 Friends of Oregon (OK, they might be biased) has a nice Q&A about development charges
I’m not sure if developers have been allowed to build in North Bethany if they’ve wanted to or if the county has locked it until infrastructure or planning is in place, but even if they did build, they could have forced e.g the school district to pay for schools (while Portland’s empty).
Most people have kids at home who will use a yard to play in for about 15 years. A lot of them decide large yards are more trouble than they are worth the rest of their lives.
Perfect example of “social engineering”. Trying to apply a one-sized-fits-all approach to housing choice.
Yes, SOME people do not want to have a big house. Fine, there are plenty of condos and apartments. Unfortunately some who cannot afford to buy have been forced out of the area, because apartments are quickly becoming condos, rents are going up (because supply is being constrained), and transportation costs are too much – so they must look elsewhere to work and live.
SOME people, however, want a yard. My great-aunt has a respectable ranch style home in East Portland and is an avid-gardener. She would not be at home in a condo in the Pearl. Look at King City, and all those retirement homes with yards (dating back to the 1960s and 1970s!) To suggest that people shouldn’t have yards – frankly, is WRONG.
The question is not what is most desirable, but what people can afford.
You’re right, the question is what people can afford. Some people can afford the Pearl/SoWa. Others cannot. Many people cannot afford 3,200 square foot homes on the side of Bull Mountain or in Lake Oswego. It’s OK that those houses are there (again, allowing choice) but it’s NOT OK to dictate that anyone who is “poor” is forced into substandard housing. It’s NOT OK to provide housing subsidies to Pearl/SoWa, but to neglect Lents (unimproved streets and sewer systems, less police presence, schools further away, fewer parks.)
It’s OK to provide housing for the rich, it’s NOT OK to not provide housing for the poor. But here we constantly talk about density and providing transportation choices – all the while neglecting those who cannot afford rich condos.
I know that there are some sightseeing bus operators in New York City that operate double-deckers, but otherwise they are difficult at best to find in the U.S.
They are in use in Las Vegas as well as Davis, California. And as a poster said above, they are in testing in Snohomish County, Washington.
Las Vegas: http://www.rtcsnv.com/deuce/
Davis: http://unitrans.ucdavis.edu/about/
Snohomish Co: http://tinyurl.com/2k8tbm
Maybe, a double-decker could work on the 15 line (except for having to cross underneath both the MAX and Streetcar lines)
The Snohomish County article says that the buses are 14 feet tall. If they can get around suburban Seattle area, I don’t see how much different the clearances are around here. If semis can make it below trees, signal masts and various wires, why not a tall bus?
p.s. on-topic: I am looking forward to the carfree conference!
Initially, double-deckers were used to ferry locals and tourists up and down the Las Vegas Strip, but recently one was added to a residential route, where ridership since the addition is up 10 percent, said spokeswoman Tracy Bower.
Don’t tell TriMet that…actually making improvements that would encourage passengers to ride a bus? Gulp…that can’t happen here in Portland! That would take away from our begging for light rail dollars!
Erik,
Your point of view regarding TriMet and bus vs Max has been well communicated. Maybe it’s not my place to ask, but how is repeating it often and with that tone consistent with the rules of the site or constructive?
Perfect example of “social engineering”. Trying to apply a one-sized-fits-all approach to housing choice.
I agree. “A moderate sized home with a considerable yard on a low traffic street — detached from commercial areas is most desirable in this day and age” is social engineering. The fact is that there is a demand for a wide variety of housing, but that particular model is the one that has been engineered as the only legitimate choice.
Again it comes to choice. I as a citizen WANT to live in a carfree city. In the land of opportunity, I and others don’t have that opportunity.
It’s not only about choices but safety. What if there was a large catastrophe that necessitated everyone getting out of town quickly. I don’t really think light rail and streetcar would suffice. They need to massively expand the freeways in this town in case the need were to arise for a mass exodus.
A giant dome over the city would also be prudent to ward of a meteor hit or invasion from the air.
Greg: You love to bring up the evacuation problem. But, where, exactly, would we go?
Lets say there was a disaster and they had to evacuate the city, so we all fled to Seattle, (assuming that whatever took out Portland hadn’t affected Seattle.) I-5 in town is 3 lanes in each direction, I-205 is 3 lanes in each direction, and with the exception of the river, there are plenty of local streets that can move a lot of traffic too, so there are 6 northbound lanes. But North of Vancouver, I-5 and I-205 join, so there is only 3 lanes to Seattle, (or 6000 vehicles per hour.) Even assuming that it was only one car per household, (and not one car per person: If you are evacuating, you want to take a bunch of your stuff, and 1) your cars are stuff, but 2) the more cars your family drives, the more stuff you can carry,) it is going to take ~130 hours to evacuate the city, or more than 5 days. (That was only part of the reason that a lot of people stayed in New Orleans.)
And, sure they could, (and should in that situation,) make both sides of I-5 northbound, so it would only take 3 days, and sure we wouldn’t all have to flee to Seattle, some of us could flee south, (although Eugene isn’t big enough to handle very many refugees and would probably be suffering from whatever forced Portland to evacuate anyways,) or East, (to where exactly?) and that gives a few more freeway lanes, but still we are looking at more than a day to evacuate the city.
Metro doesn’t control the freeway from here to Seattle, or from here to Eugene, and even if they did, they wouldn’t built it bigger, it would be a huge waste of money, because it almost never (accidents, snow, and construction cause problems for all roads,) has problems now. But, my point is, we could demolish most of the freeways in town and have absolutely no impact on our (lack of) ability to evacuate.
If you really want to study evacuations, I’d suggest you read about how Cuba or Sri Lanka does it. Yes, a communist dictatorship and a 3rd world country in the middle of a civil war can teach us a thing or two about evacuating.
How about a 10 lane in each direction freeway and a 20 lane bridge into Vancouver? I-5 and 205 are totally inadequate already. Salem now has more freeway lanes running through it than Portland does. If we want to be a world class city then we had better do something about our awful freeway situation. Tearing them out will accomplish nothing other than allowing Portland to cut its own throat. The view that we should tear out I-5 is selfish on the part of the people who choose their “livable” lifestyle to those who want to live elsewhere and commute into town. It’s about choices not mandates.
How about a 10 lane in each direction freeway and a 20 lane bridge into Vancouver?
Sounds interesting… please put a route and a price tag on that and get back to us.
Salem now has more freeway lanes running through it than Portland does.
Portland:
Salem:
(Hwy. 22 has freeway characteristics through a few stretches, some may argue that it should be included)
– Bob R.
“How about a 10 lane in each direction freeway and a 20 lane bridge into Vancouver?”
Yeah, great idea, that is if people weren’t living alongside I-5. I dare you to say that to all the people whose homes would get bulldozed to make way for such a thing.
Bob R, you are forgetting 405, 217, and depending on if you are talking metro area or not, 14 in Washington State.
And a 20 lane freeway/bridge would do as much to divide the city as the Columbia does. However, I would support 10, 2 lane bridges, or 5, 4 lane ones. That is basically what we have over the Willamette now.
But I repeat the question, how do those help us evacuate the city any better than the streetcar does? Salem does have us beat on a “ability to evacuate quickly” standard, (because they are smaller,) but Rice Hill has beat us both on that: They can all get out of town in about 2 minutes and 5 miles down the road there wouldn’t even be a traffic jam.
Hi Matthew –
I was confining my list of freeway lines to corridors within the city limits, and also considering 405 as part of the I-5 corridor. (I think most of 217 falls outside the City of Portland.)
I agree that a 20 lane freeway bridge would be physically divisive… I said Greg’s proposal was “interesting”, not necessarily a good idea. What makes it “interesting” to me is that it represents an opportunity to really explore what the end result of completely car-centric development might look like and cost.
As for evacuations, I agree with everything you’ve said…
The biggest immediate natural emergency I can think of for this area would be a large earthquake (and subsequent fire), in which case the primary automotive evacuation routes would likely be seriously compromised – you wouldn’t be able to get many people out quickly, and the main event would already be over. Better to keep the working roads clear so that emergency vehicles can move about freely.
– Bob R.
A 20 lane Interstate bridge wouldn’t even be necessary if Oregon didn’t have such strict land use laws that restrict housing choices. Most of the “sprawl” in the Portland area happens in Clark County where traditional suburban areas are still allowed.
Paul: you should read the famous “Streetcar Suburbs.” Actually, every mode of transportation has produced responses in residential terms. The book mentioned above examines the first wave of “suburbanization” in Boston following the Streetcar (not motorcar). Similarly, the “mainline” suburbs in Philadelphia followed the train line, not auto highways.
Bob T: Correct. Numerous streetcar companies built lines with the intention of
spurring residential areas farther out, on
land they either owned or had some interest in.
I watch a lot of silent comedy shorts, almost
all filmed in the LA area, and I’ve always noted scenes in which streetcars were out in empty areas where streets were put in as well and
houses were popping up here and there. Many of
these are in the 1914-17 period when few could
afford cars so the streetcar is what was going to
take them home to the new burbs.
Oh those big, bad streetcars! They helped create suburbs! Should we have a streetcar free city?
Bob Tiernan
Don’t forget PRIVATE streetcars built new residential areas.
Again it comes to choice. I as a citizen WANT to live in a carfree city. In the land of opportunity, I and others don’t have that opportunity.
Sure you can.
You can live in a condo or apartment downtown. (If you can afford it, or have a low enough income to be eligible for housing assistance.)
You can use TriMet where you need to go. (As long as where you need to go is accessible on TriMet, given that many of TriMet’s routes are rush-hour only, or operate with infrequent schedules.)
You can do your shopping at one of the few grocery stores downtown. Fred Meyer, QFC and Safeway all have downtown stores. There are numerous other stores that should suffice for all your needs.
Access to regional and national transportation, such as Amtrak and airline, is available by walking to Union Station, using TriMet bus lines 9 or 77, or taking MAX to the airport.
All of these things, have not only been encouraged, but have been possible for many, many, many years. There is absolutely, positively no law, policy or edict that has discouraged the above lifestyle choice.
In fact, the downtown area has over the years been heavily subsidized, and Portland has made a point in revitalizing downtown to make it enticing for people to be downtown, beginning with the construction of the Transit Mall in the mid-1970s, the creation of numerous city parks and fountains (surely Pioneer Courthouse Square and Waterfront Park come to mind), that the largest city library is located downtown, that downtown is blanketed with a city sponsored wireless internet cloud, and that most transit goes through downtown.
If you want to live in a car free area, what is stopping you? Is it the high prices of downtown housing? Or the availability of transit service to where employers and other residents want to be located?
I watch a lot of silent comedy shorts, almost
all filmed in the LA area, and I’ve always noted scenes in which streetcars were out in empty areas where streets were put in as well and
houses were popping up here and there. Many of
these are in the 1914-17 period when few could
afford cars so the streetcar is what was going to
take them home to the new burbs.
Yup, Ladd’s Addition for example, was a Streetcar suburb. But you miss the critical difference: with a Streetcar suburb you’re building a walkable-scale community. With an auto-oriented suburb you get a scale that doesn’t work for any mode except the car.
There’s a reason our Streetcar suburbs from 100 years ago are now the highest property value neighborhoods in the region.
If you want to live in a car free area, what is stopping you?
I woudn’t call Downtown a car-free area. There are still cars. On every street.
It is certainly easier to live there without a car than in most other places, but that isn’t that same thing.
Streetcars aren’t that noisy compared to the din of hundreds of cars passing by every day, nor do they pollute the air directly. Suburbs centered around streetcar stations grew into diverse communities home to all kinds of people, businesses and services.
In other words, Randal O’Toole’s worst nightmare.
There are plenty of places in Alaska that are “car-free cities”. There’s also Stehekin, Washington.
What’s most interesting is that 90% of all trips are taken by auto, despite what many claim is Portland’s excellent transit system. Clearly, even with what many consider is abundant transit, still the vast majority of trips do not involve TriMet.
If you want to live in a car-free Portland, maybe we should start by addressing TriMet’s deficiencies; however it seems that most people here want to apologize for TriMet’s poor service instead of working to fix its problems. Until such time that the problems are fixed, we will continue to see the vast majority of trips made in the area to be auto based, because TriMet is incapable of providing service that the public demands and wants.
Suburbs centered around streetcar stations grew into diverse communities home to all kinds of people, businesses and services.
Not necessarily. It takes more than a streetcar/trolley/interurban stop to make a community successful.
Tualatin had two interurban stops up to the 1930s but didn’t get off the ground until the 1980s. Lents had a busy trolley stop, and it’s hardly successful (as a social center). Orenco was a busy railroad junction but didn’t take off until development was heavily subsidized in the late ’90s/early 2000s.
On the other hand, communities like Garden Home (interurban junction), Hillsdale (Red Electric stop), Multnomah Village (Oregon Electric stop), and Sellwood (trolley barn/terminus) have thrived, even after the streetcar lines had long disappeared (and don’t exist today, even in the form of MAX or Streetcar.)
Erik “If you want to live in a car-free Portland, maybe we should start by addressing TriMet’s deficiencies; however it seems that most people here want to apologize for TriMet’s poor service instead of working to fix its problems.”
Erik,
I will try to be more clear this time: please stop. I understand your frustration but do not appreciate multiple posts on the same theme. I do not appreciate insinuations that people like me just want to apologize for TriMet just because we don’t agree with you.
Erik,
I feel the need to echo Hawthorne’s sentiments.
I actually find your insights into TriMet service useful, as you do a great job of identifying deficiencies in the system and service. But the tone and repetition are problematic.
I also checked our comment statistics, and you are recently twice as prolific as the next 3 most frequent commenters, and given that it’s all on pretty much one theme, it’s over the top.
I’d prefer not to have to go into ‘enforcement’ mode, so I can I just ask you to scale back please?
Thanks.
Chris
Then I will simply ask this:
Why does it take a Streetcar or other non-auto transit to make a community successful?
I have named several specific examples of communities that had, but no longer have, rail-based mass transit, that are unarguably successful communities in their own right, right here in the Portland metro area.
Now it seems that everyone wants to attack me as the messenger, instead of focusing on the fact that there are successful communities here in Portland, that don’t have a Streetcar or MAX line.
I am not going to apologize for the fact that I have serious concerns with how TriMet conducts itself. I am not going to apologize and accept failure, or substandard service. There is no point in trying to support something, that cannot be supported with the infrastructure we have (or more appropriately, do not have). We cannot build transit-friendly communities without transit, because that just leaves it a -friendly community.
Once again, we have several vibrant, successful and in-demand communities right here in Portland, such as Sellwood and Multnomah Village. Judging from the tone of this site, those sites should be crime-ridden, boarded up, undesirable locations. They aren’t. They are popular. And they don’t have Streetcars going to it or MAX.
Ironically I have even supported a MAX line to go to Multnomah Village (and Garden Home).
Those communities ARE successful, in part because despite a lack of major vehicle thoroughfares, that they do have excellent bus connections. On one street corner in Multnomah Village there are four bus lines that you can catch (1, 44, 45, and a Marquam Hill express.)
Why is it that I am wrong or out of line to suggest that those are successful, and should be improved upon elsewhere? That people can and will use busses, God forbid, if they are made to be successful?
I find it ironic that this forum has a problem with highways and roads because they are deficient (and repeats it infinitely) but when a deficiency with TriMet is discussed, I might as well deface the Sistine Chapel, murder the Pope, and yell anti-Semetic slurs in the heart of Israel.
Erik,
I think the simple answer to your question is that rail lines attract the kind of development that helps reduce VMT (compact, walkable, etc.) and bus lines do this less effectively.
Which is not to say that buses aren’t important or that we don’t have an obligation to provide bus service to the whole region.
But the cost to provide a passenger-mile of service in a relatively less dense area like Tualatin is more expensive than in denser areas, and I don’t blame TriMet for looking to put their limited dollars where they do the most good.
The bottom line is that we don’t have nearly enough resources for transit. I’d much rather focus positive energy on growing the pie than negative energy on arguing on how it gets sliced up.
Which is not to say that discussion about how we allocate the resources isn’t important, or welcome here. But angry tone and repetition are not what makes for fruitful discussion in this forum.
Chris said:
“I actually find your insights into TriMet service useful, as you do a great job of identifying deficiencies in the system and service. But the tone and repetition are problematic.”
>>>> But Chris, as a non-driver and heavy user of transit, the issue of Trimet’s “deficencies” is cardinal to me, and maybe should be harped on.
I can see clearly now why the % of transit usage is relatively low (only 10% of commuter trips in Mult. County, according to Rex Burkholder).
I would think that this issue would be of prime importance to any alternative transportation advocate, as the cause of transit is really being hurt here.
I think many have missed the point of this post and conference. Its not about Mobility, its about livability. Think Venice in PDX. Its not so much about not owning a car or driving, but having the option to avoid ALL the other problems of auto’s. Eating at a sidewalk cafe or walking to a local store, without the sound, smell or site of automobiles. That’s the idea of a carfree city, taking livability to entirely new level. A carfree city could offer a large parking garage outside the carfree area connected to a streetcar system where people could have access to cars.
Craig said: “Don’t forget PRIVATE streetcars built new residential areas.”
Private streetcars didn’t build anything – land developers did. Those same developers owned the streetcars, which were money losers. The only reason the streetcars and interurbans operated was to shuttle people out into the country to buy property. Hence, those lines were integral to the developers’ buisness plan, though they wouldn’t have termed it such.
This situation cannot be replicated today, because the conditions that existed then no longer exist. The original developers got the land for next to nothing, and sold it cheap. Multiple iterations of property owners have driver the base cost of the land up, so the floor is too high to allow the expense margin that generated the original streetcars.
Matt Picio, I was pointing out that freeways were not built with private dollars, therefore they distorting the market.