Update: 8/9/07
Here’s the actual recommendation document (PDF, 490K).
Original Post: 7/12/07
According to coverage in the Daily Journal of Commerce the Lake Oswego Transit Alternatives Analysis Project Advisory Committee (LOPAC in Metro acronym-ese) is divided on the mode choice. The area subcommittees for the north and south segments favor Streetcar while the segment in the middle prefers bus rapid transit.
“As attracted as I am to a big, sexy project like the streetcar,” Brian Lantow, a representative of Riverdale, the unincorporated land between the two cities, said, “I don’t see it serving the population of the neighborhood.”
And then there is the question of which alignment to use through John’s Landing. Staying on the Willamette Shoreline trolley right of way would put the Streetcar only a few feet from some residents’ windows, but reduce total travel time by several minutes. Putting a the Streetcar in Macadam would increase ridership and development potential, but also increase project cost.
It’s going to be an interesting summer for LOPAC and the Steering Committee of local electeds who will sort through this. The first formal public hearing by the Steering Committee on this topic is Monday at 4pm at Metro.
24 responses to “LOPAC Divided”
These streetcars are pretty silent. They’re already just feet from people’s windows in the Pearl District, and I don’t hear anybody complaining.
As long as there is a stop within walking distance, I don’t see the reason for the John’s Landing dilemma. Keep it on the R-O-W to speed up operations!
As for the Riverdale neighborhood — what, don’t they get a stop, too?
Just for clarification, I mean move the 43-Taylor’s Ferry bus route, not to be confused with the highway of the same number.
Tim-
Thanks for the clarification as to the motivations of the Riverdale/Dunthorpe folks, as well as the proposal to move the bus route.
I completely agree.
Hopefully, if it comes to that, a court order will again succeed in prioritizing the streetcar and mass transit that serves everybody, over the parochial interests of the few.
It will be interesting to see if the clout of Dunthorpe/Riverdale trumps the broader public interest and kills the Streetcar option.
Without Streetcar the ROW will be lost; i.e. no Streetcar, no Trail of any kind. It was nip and tuck a dozen years ago to get the Willamette Shore Trolley up and running due to lawsuits.
BRT without exclusive ROW is not high capacity transit; its a fraud. Better to do nothing.
So, let me get this straight, the property owners along the Willamette Shore Trolley right of way don’t want the streetcar to go in there, because if the streetcar doesn’t go in there, the land, (which has a completely legal right of way on it,) would be given to them, at no cost to them?
Can I go to public meetings and ask the city to remove the street in front of my house, so I can get that land for free too, even though that street has been there long before I was even born? This sounds like a great way to enlarge my property…
Can I go to public meetings and ask the city to remove the street in front of my house, so I can get that land for free too, even though that street has been there long before I was even born? This sounds like a great way to enlarge my property…
Yes, as a matter of fact, you can. If the City gives up a street for transportation use, it reverts to the owners on either side (you get the piece from the centerline to your lot line).
This was an issue in the Burnside Couplet discussions. If the City freed up right-of-way for development, the City could not sell the ‘new’ land, it went to the adjoining property owners.
Can I go to public meetings and ask the city to remove the street in front of my house, so I can get that land for free too, even though that street has been there long before I was even born? This sounds like a great way to enlarge my property…
See ORS Chapter 271 (use/disposition of public lands). Also ORS 368.326 through 368.366 (specific to county roads)
There is something that MUST be thought of, and that is the VALUE of the Right Of Way that we (the public) owns there.
Not using that ROW is essentially giving up 50 million dollars (approx).
The streetcar absolutely should use the existing rail ROW. Those people built those houses there long after those tracks were put in (at least 99% of them).
Just like the people who buy houses near the Airport and then complain about the noise… If you want the house it comes with the rail line next to it. Otherwise, don’t buy that house.
I would LOVE to have a house right on a streetcar line, even without the stop nearby – as I could do so many cool decorations, christmas lights, political signs, whatever. It would be fun.
And streetcars are no more noisy than cars. Having a car drive past your house once every 15 minutes would not be bad at all. It is not like they are going to be stopping at your front door and letting vagrants and Jehovas Witnesses off to harass you…
:)
Since there has now been a trolley operating on that route for about seventeen years, and because one did operate there in the past and the buyers of that property were aware that there was a rail line there, Dunthorpe property owners may have NO legal right to object. The usage has been established, and if they were going to file an objection they should have done so by now. Besides that, municipalities have eminent domain.
There could be another, politically popular way to get a line going–even more effectively now. Buy more old trolleys plus diesel auxiliary drive units and run them on BIODIESEL. Run about four cars in the morming and four to six in the evening, all on biodiesel on the existing track. That would be a hit.
Dunthorpe property owners may have NO legal right to object.
Neither did the folks in the way of the Mount Hood freeway. This is not a legal debate, it is a debate over benefits and burdens. I don’t think the burden on the folks along the ROW is all that great and there are real benefits for a whole lot of people. But in a democracy, they get to object. This is ultimately a political decision.
Dunthorpe property owners may have NO legal right to object.
Unfortunately they do.
The State of Oregon gives way too much deference to those living near a transportation project. Look at the Newberg-Dundee Bypass project – the ONLY reason it’s being considered as a bypass is because of the demands of the cities of Newberg and Dundee. Had ODOT simply proceeded with the necessary improvements, 99W would be five-laned all the way to McDougall’s Corner. But Dundee and Newberg (despite Newberg receiving millions of dollars in improvements to 99W including streetscaping and pedestrian improvements in its downtown core, additional traffic signals, and bike lanes throughout) objected.
The biggest issue facing the alignment of the Streetcar is that the WST right-of-way is bound to an 1870s-era railroad land grant. If it isn’t used for a railroad purpose, the land reverts to the adjoining property owners. That is the exact reason why the WST trolley operates today – to preserve the railroad function. If that trolley disappears, the adjoining landowners will have (the federally-backed) right to take over the right-of-way – even though the consortium of governments paid for the “property” (when in fact all they really bought was the rails, ties, ballast, and the right to the easement solong as it’s used for a railroad purpose).
Really, Metro shouldn’t be wasting its time trying to figure out what alignment to use – because if it chooses anything BUT the WST alignment, that land goes away. It isn’t railbanked, it doesn’t go into public use – it disappears into the hands of the adjoining property owners, and the consortium of governments don’t get their money back. (And I’m sure they will sue Metro for environmental remediation, which will cost the taxpayers even more to make some already wealthy landowners happy.)
Erik is right on the money on this one…no streetcar, no alignment. It will be interesting to see if the rich and powerful tax dodgers of Riverdale/Dunthorpe can wag the dog on this one.
But in the end I think Metro Council will vote for Streetcar all the way.
Can’t Lake Oswego get a biodiesel powered trolley car going right away?!?! I think those diesel power units are fairly common–Astoria uses one for their waterfront trolley.
Shouldn’t be a big problem to convert it to Biodiesel and keep a supply somewhere on city property. They could buy a couple more trolleycars and be in (green) business.
Ron,
Actually I found a vehicle that is used in Germany that I thought would be an excellent vehicle – it’s diesel (obiviously could run biodiesel) and bi-level (like the old trolley that was used up until a year ago); has a low-floor lower section.
http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/de/diesel/dmu/670/pix.html
Of course it’s not FRA compliant (crashworthiness directive) so it couldn’t be used on the connecting Tillamook District (Milwaukie-Lake Oswego-Tualatin-Sherwood) but it’d be a more compatible vehicle for the route than, say the Colorado Railcar DMU that’ll be used on the Beaverton-Wilsonville route. Plus it’s shorter, has excellent ADA accessibility, and can claim it’s of “European Design” to appease all those Mercedes and BMW owners in Lake O.
Erik,
Thanks for the photos. Everybody else please look. This is the kind of thing that could make both MAX and the streetcar obsolete.
Acually as I mentioned in another thread, I wouldn’t think it would be hard to get old streetcars on the cheap. On my two trips to Europe I have noticed that there are some rail yards just chock full of old rail cars of every sort. These could probably be bought for excursion trains, heavy rail commuter lines, urban streetcar routes. What do other cities do when they want to implement streetcars on a limited budget? Seattle has some old ones, New Orleans does, Kenosha WI does.
Why does Portland have to break the bank–or does it? I suppose getting parts could be a problem, but that’s why our society has machinists. I would be curious what the experience of communities has been with rehabbing older cars. I could just see a 1930’s Berlin commuter car coming through the fog in Dunthorpe, headlight blazing in the tunnel…..
Here’s double deck streetcar in Hong Kong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hong_kong_tram.jpg
But the German one does look very modern and stable.
you guys do realize that old streetcars already run on this route and use a towed power source just like astoria? they also had a double decker car running on this route for at least 10 years up until about 2 years ago.
i’ve thought the best option would be to gradually upgrade the existing WST line into a full-fledged electrically powered streetcar line with signal system and improved track.
Of course it’s not FRA compliant (crashworthiness directive) so it couldn’t be used on the connecting Tillamook District (Milwaukie-Lake Oswego-Tualatin-Sherwood
Where could it be used then?
This is the kind of thing that could make both MAX and the streetcar obsolete.
Can you explain why? It looks like a double decker bus that runs in a track like the Eugene BRT.
Why does Portland have to break the bank
It hasn’t had to yet. I am sure it won’t in the future. But it would be a surprise if rehabbing old railroad cars and buses was an economy measure. Rehabbing old cars and houses certainly isn’t the cheap way to go.
Where could it be used then?
On the Willamette Shores Trolley line (between SoWa and Lake Oswego). (You know, the point of this thread?)
Speaking of TriMet not having to “break the bank”, certainly you have a better reason to explain why TriMet cancelled an order for articulated busses a few years ago? And cancelled or curtailed several options for busses with New Flyer? Was it because TriMet’s poor financial condition that requires it to take dollars from the bus operating and capital budgets and use it to subsidize MAX operations/expansions?
you guys do realize that old streetcars already run on this route and use a towed power source just like astoria? they also had a double decker car running on this route for at least 10 years up until about 2 years ago.
Yes, did I not mention it myself? In fact I stated, in my comment on August 13, 2007 10:30 PM, I stated:
“…and bi-level (like the old trolley that was used up until a year ago); has a low-floor lower section.”
In fact I have pictures of the WST operation I can share with you if you’d like. And the Astoria trolley when I last rode it a few years ago.
i’ve thought the best option would be to gradually upgrade the existing WST line into a full-fledged electrically powered streetcar line with signal system and improved track.
Cost of two of those diesel powered railbusses? About $2M each, or $4M. Cost of rehabbing 5 1/2 miles of track? About $5M. Cost of station platforms and other assorted elements? About $1-2M. Total cost to dieselise? About $10-12M.
Cost of a Portland Streetcar extension? About $20M a mile, or $100M.
What would you rather pay? Even if I grossly overestimate to $20M for the diesel option, or $100M? Of course there’s a third option, enhanced bus service, and if we purchased five hybrid-electric (and biodiesel capable) articulated busses at $700K each ($3.5M total) and enhanced bus stop improvements ($1M) that gets us to $5M.
Just a clarification question about the LOPAC recommendation. On both study recommendations, LOPAC seems to be recommending that the streetcar follow Macadam Ave. through Johns Landing at the expense of the existing ROW. Does this prevent Metro from studying the option of keeping a streetcar on the existing Shoreline ROW through Johns Landing?
As someone who makes this commute regularly, Macadam southbound is suicide at rush hour, as Sellwood Bridge traffic can back up as far as Pendleton St. Putting a streetcar on shared right of way there would be insane. As much as I understand the “development potential” argument, it seems to me that in this particular circumstance, streetcar ought to be more of a commuter tool than a development one.
My understanding is that the project management committee (members of staff from the various entities with a stake in this) are going to recommend continued study of using the ROW through John’s landing.
My guess is that with a split recommendation (citizens one way, staff another) the Steering Committee might well keep both options alive into the EIS phase. But we’ll see in September.
Just a clarification question about the LOPAC recommendation. On both study recommendations, LOPAC seems to be recommending that the streetcar follow Macadam Ave. through Johns Landing at the expense of the existing ROW.
This seems kind of insane to me. Keeping the streetcar on the WST alignment is cheaper and creates a faster trip, and creating a bike path on any portion of the WST alignment (replacing the tracks) would require expensive land condemnation.
Also, isn’t a bike path north of the Sellwood Bridge rather redundant? Once SOWA is finished, there will be a bike path most of the way from the Sellwood Bridge to Waterfront Park, with only a couple of breaks.
At very least, the “fastest, cheapest” transit analysis should be preserved for study as part of the EIS and measured against the other options. Anything else would be irresponsible.
Thanks for the answer, Chris. I’m not too familiar with these processes so that helps a lot.