This week has been all about locking down the local match for the Streetcar Loop project. A deadline looms on September 7th to get the necessary info to the FTA to get a $75M Federal grant into the President’s next budget, so a number of things happened this week on the way to September 6th City Council vote on all the necessary funding commitments for about $72M in local match:
- A briefing before Portland Development Commission, which appears to have been trying to ignore the fact that this project exists even though Sam Adams testified before them almost 2 years ago that he was asking them for $31M in TIF.
- A briefing before City Council in which it appeared pretty clear that City Council would commit $27M in TIF whether PDC wanted to our not.
- First reading on the formation of an LID that will contribute $15M to the project
It’s not surprising that this process is a little rougher than past projects. It took us from 1997 to 2007 to assemble the $100M that built the existing alignment. Now we’re trying to put together about 3/4s of that amount in a much shorter timeline. Under normal circumstances we probably would have taken another year to do it, but we’re rushing to meet what is essentially a gold-plated invitation from the FTA to be the first Streetcar project funded under the Small Starts program.
I haven’t written much about it here, because I’ve been spending a lot of time on Amanda Fritz’ blog clarifying what this project is and isn’t about and where the money is coming from. You can check out that conversation here and here.
78 responses to “Streetcar Loop Funding Lurches Forward”
To Quote Amand Fritz from her site: “The rest of the City outside of the Urban Renewal Areas will pay at least $6 million in money from the Transportation Systems Development Charges fund…It represents an extra subsidy paid by Portlanders outside of the URAs, in addition to the annual property tax assessments citizens at large pay for Downtown Waterfront and the Convention Center URAs…Doing the Eastside Streetcar means bringing in $99 million in outside money, but it also means not doing $27 million of other projects within the Urban Renewal Areas and $6 million in transportation improvements in the rest of the city.”
This duct taped together budget busting financial plan for the Eastside Streetcar that is full of political propaganda and rhetoric is comparative to a person accruing a massive amount of debt by taking out second and third mortgages on their house that has a leaky roof so they can buy a new toy, and then having no money for anything else including fixing the roof. The difference is that an individual who has overreached their debt limit must live with the leaky roof that may also damage the contents of the house. The City on the other hand wants to further pick the pockets of Portland taxpayers with a Street Maintenance Fee or some other form of taxation assessed on non-users of the streetcar to pay for leaky roof infrastructure costs such as repaving streets and other maintenance. Using the $6 million from the Transportation Systems Development Charges Fund as a back door subsidy to the streetcar demonstrates the con job being presented to Portlanders that additional taxes are needed for street maintenance.
Additionally, motorist paid parking meter revenues should also be used for street maintenance, motorist infrastructure and roadway improvements, not for operating a full sized Lionel train layout. Installing parking meters on the Eastside to subsidize operations will only have a negative impact on businesses in the project area, particularly small family owned businesses. The proposed special incentive one dollar streetcar fare that does not even equal TriMet’s standard fare only demonstrates the projected ridership numbers are not supportive of even the operational costs of this snail rail operation. If the streetcar was proposed as a private sector financed investment opportunity, any profitable business person would run away as fast as they could. At the very least, a streetcar project should befinancially self-sustainable paid for by users through the farebox.
Suggesting the streetcar itself will spur development and increase the tax base along its route is also a con job scam. New development along the existing streetcar route has come at an expanded price tag not occurring without the City Council handing out property tax abatements to developers like free candy along with other generous tax breaks from both the City and PDC. Wouldn’t the $27 million in other projects that must be cancelled because the streetcar is so all consuming of funds also increase the tax base and probably cost taxpayers far less? New development will occur with or without the trolley, and probably occur faster on its own if more congestion reducing roadway and freeway improvements were built.
Furthermore, replacing bus service with snail rail not only slows down transit service through the corridor, but also creates more traffic congestion and impedes freight mobility by gumming up the flow on the high traffic volume streets the snail rail route traverses. Since, all property owners within the city limits have a financial stake in this folly of a trolley plan, this proposal of crony capitalism and accruing debt that will be on the backs of Portlanders for generations to come only to build a dysfunctional transit system needs to go out for a vote of the people to decide its outcome – and not just be railroaded through by a body of social engineers and a hand selected stacked deck citizens group.
One of the interesting tidbits from Amanda’s site is George Passodore, the chair of trimet’s board and former head of Wells Fargo Bank locally, seems to think that rezoning will be necessary to get the kind of development projected. Given his background, it seems to me that opinion ought to be given a lot of weight.
Terry’s idea has been tried in cities like Dallas, and the result is even more gridlock that Portland has and many miles of sprawl. The fact is that automobile travel has been mega-subsidized for many years, so the fact that the streetcar is subsidized is not a show stopper for a project like this. If the streetcar must pay its way without subsidies, then car drivers should pay the true cost of that mode of transportation, which is somewhere in the neighborhood of $10-$12 per gallon of gas.
There are some questions to be answered, but I support a multimodal transportation policy that gives people choices. Streetcars support the kind of development that will reduce commute distances and make travel more convenient in the long run.
All the neighborhood Streetcar visionaries should take close note of this struggle to get the local funds. If you want a Streetcar up Hawthorne, or Broadway/Wiedler you need to be prepared for:
Paid parking to over the city’s share of operations.
A LID (Local Improvment District) to cover a portion of local capital share.
And with no TIF money outside the central city, I expect there would have to be a City wide bond issue approved to cover that portion. (Williams/Vancouver and MLK are the only extensions that could access TIF money)
Using TIF money for Streetcar makes sense because of the remarkable amount of private investment (ie TIF generating investment) that has occurred adjacent to Streetcar on the westside. Only if you don’t like the concept of TIF at all, which some here don’t, can you object.
People have wanted to develop the central eastside for 20 years but the zoning would not allow it. Now…whatch what is going to happen. The streetcar will go in, then the zoing wil change from industrial to EX and the development will begin. THEN, the city crooks will stand and announce that the streetcar spurred $XX billion in development so they would like another please.
The development wont begin till the subsidies do; the streetcar is just a conversation piece to avoid talking about development scams.
Took a couple rides on the streetcar today. It was filled but not over-packed and everybody seemed to like the ride. Good enough for me. If it were empty all the time, I might queston expansion. I’m looking forward to Rose Quarter, Lloyd District, Burnside Bridgehead development and a grand ride to the eastside waterfront. So sue me, I think the eastside streetcar idea is completely sensible.
One of the interesting tidbits from Amanda’s site is George Passodore, the chair of trimet’s board and former head of Wells Fargo Bank locally, seems to think that rezoning will be necessary to get the kind of development projected. Given his background, it seems to me that opinion ought to be given a lot of weight.
I wonder if George has actually looked at the zoning map and the available FAR potential?
There is certainly more opportunity for redevelopment if we rezone, but it would also lose the support of the neighborhoods we pass through and probably the LID.
People have wanted to develop the central eastside for 20 years but the zoning would not allow it.
There is already a huge swath of EXd zoning along MLK/Grand and at the bridgeheads. Streetcar will activate this.
The development wont begin till the subsidies do; the streetcar is just a conversation piece to avoid talking about development scams.
If you look at the development along the current alignment there are certainly some subsidized projects (mostly apartments or affordable housing) but the majority is unsubsidized.
“Streetcars support the kind of development that will reduce commute distances and make travel more convenient in the long run.”
>>>> Not here in Portland. It is the tax subsidies that have resulted in development along MAX and streetcar lines. Then, the rail cabal takes credit for the development.
Now we have Mr. Adams lamenting the lack of redevelopment along Interstate Avenue, after wasting 350 million on a LRT that gives marginal (max. 5 min.) advantage to some riders while inconveniencing a great number of riders, with longer trips and additional transfers.
And just wait until the new streetcar gets bogged down in traffic on Grand and MLK! That could mean the end of certain peoples political careers. My friend told me that it took her 15 minutes to drive from NW 20th and Lovejoy to the Broadway Bridge in afternoon. So already NW Lovejoy is a bottleneck.
I wonder if George has actually looked at the zoning map and the available FAR potential?
I don’t know, but much as I like planners they have lots of theories, but not all of them work commercially. George Passadore had the job of making the private sector side work. He may be looking at smaller numbers because he isn’t counting stuff unless he really thinks it works commercially.
Hey Wells…you are welcome. That ride cost the tax payers a pretty penny. If you gave all those people on the trolley free anything the store would be packed. Ever go to Ben and Jerry’s for free ice cream day? There is a line around the block. Does that mean it makes sense to open ice cream parlors all over town that hand out free cones?
No nwjg, it wouldn’t make sense to hand out free ice cream all over town, but again, your analogy is wrong. First of all, the streetcar isn’t free for most of it’s route, (and yes, people are paying for their rides.) But people don’t need ice cream, (it tends to make them fat, and then they have heart attacks and go to the hospital, and since they don’t have health insurance and can’t pay their bills, people that do have health insurance’s rates go up.) However, people need to get around, if people didn’t go places, our economy would stop working. I’d compare it more to giving out free water: people need to drink plenty of water every day or they die. Would it make sense to put drinking fountains all over town that gave away free water? I’d say yes. The streetcar is indeed subsidized by non-riders, much like roads are subsidized by non drivers. But one of the big difference is that most of the cost of a gallon of gas goes to people that are actively trying to figure out new ways to kill Americans, where as most of the money spent on the streetcar goes to people that live in the area and are trying to do things like raise children. And I don’t believe that I should give any money to people that are trying to kill me, and if I have to pay more taxes as a result, that is fine with me. But if you disagree, you should look around some more because you can probably find a cheaper way to kill yourself.
No nwjg, it wouldn’t make sense to hand out free ice cream all over town, but again, your analogy is wrong. First of all, the streetcar isn’t free for most of it’s route, (and yes, people are paying for their rides.) But people don’t need ice cream, (it tends to make them fat, and then they have heart attacks and go to the hospital, and since they don’t have health insurance and can’t pay their bills, people that do have health insurance’s rates go up.) However, people need to get around, if people didn’t go places, our economy would stop working. I’d compare it more to giving out free water: people need to drink plenty of water every day or they die. Would it make sense to put drinking fountains all over town that gave away free water? I’d say yes. The streetcar is indeed subsidized by non-riders, much like roads are subsidized by non drivers. But one of the big difference is that most of the cost of a gallon of gas goes to people that are actively trying to figure out new ways to kill Americans, where as most of the money spent on the streetcar goes to people that live in the area and are trying to do things like raise children. And I don’t believe that I should give any money to people that are trying to kill me, and if I have to pay more taxes as a result, that is fine with me. But if you disagree, you should look around some more because you can probably find a cheaper way to kill yourself.
It really seems the main issue that gets debated here over and over (no matter the topic of the thread) comes down to two things:
– The concern that public officials and planners are creating destinations that they want people to go to, without regard to where people actually want or need go.
– Where people are actually going at the time they need to go (especially work), viable transit options aren’t available (hourly AM/PM-rush-only buses going the opposite direction because that’s where the transit center connects to the hourly bus going the other direction isn’t viable to most people).
t really seems the main issue that gets debated here over and over (no matter the topic of the thread) comes down to two things:
– The concern that public officials and planners are creating destinations that they want people to go to, without regard to where people actually want or need go.
– Where people are actually going at the time they need to go (especially work), viable transit options aren’t available (hourly AM/PM-rush-only buses going the opposite direction because that’s where the transit center connects to the hourly bus going the other direction isn’t viable to most people).
I’m guessing how this relates to the streetcar loop (the skeptics can tell me if I’m right or wrong) is the money could be used to fund the second type of transportation, to make it viable. The perceived clogging of MLK/Grand with pedestrians and streetcars to another planned destination similar to Beaverton Central or Cascade Station is the first type of transportation I mentioned above.
So already NW Lovejoy is a bottleneck.
The Lovejoy bottleneck is a symptom of the successful development of the Pearl District, due in part to the Streetcar! Streetcar is cooperating with the Pearl District in a district-wide transportation operations study that should result in traffic control changes to address both the existing bottleneck and expected future demand as the area north of Lovejoy develops.
Matthew wrote:
much like roads are subsidized by non drivers
That is a blantantly FALSE statement.
Name one “non-driver” that has ZERO use for the public streets (including the bike lanes and sidewalks built as part of these public streets) but is unfairly forced to subsidize these public thoroughfares.
Remember that in order to fully qualify your statement, your “non-driver” must also:
1. Never, ever have a need for emergency services such as police, fire or medical – as they all will require that same road for access.
2. Never, ever receive any mail or parcels, as every mail and delivery service will use that same road.
3. Never, ever use electricity, water, sewer services, natural gas, telephone or cable TV, or internet using either telephone or cable TV lines – because they are all installed using easements on these public roads.
4. Never use garbage or recycling services; those trucks must use the same roads.
5. Not build the home they live in, unless all of the materials used to build the home were obtained from the same site (i.e. mined out of the ground; wood milled from the existing trees, etc.)
6. Not use heating oil to heat; it must be delivered by truck (using those roads)
7. Not purchase any goods at a store (including groceries); they must all be delivered to the store by truck using those same roads.
8. Not work for a business that does any of the above.
9. Not work outside the home that requires transportation on those public thoroughfares (in other words, you don’t work immediately next door where you can simply cross the property line; or have an access easement across someone else’s property that doesn’t require you to access the street – including simply crossing the street).
10. Never travel, because any form of travel would require those streets.
Mathew said: “if people didn’t go places, our economy would stop working”
And if nobody drove cars and trucks and paid both state and Federal gas and fuel taxes, there would be no money for roads and no money to be discriminately siphoned off for other modes of transport from roadway funds.
Therefore, since motorists already pay proportionately more for the infrastructure they use than do the users of transit or bicycle facilities; people that think motorists do not pay their fare share of transportation directed taxes and fees should then have no objection to accepting the same responsibility for other modes of transport. This willingness to pay should include paying the true costs of using transit service with fares set at $10. to $20, per ride, not expecting federal grants to be poached for transit and bike projects from the Federal Highway Trust Fund that only motorists contribute to through the Federal tax on motor fuels, and making sure bicyclists pay for the privilege of using and construction costs of bike lanes and other bicycle infrastructure by embracing a bicyclist only user paid tax of $50. to $200. per year. Anything less is a hypocritical self-serving expectation that one’s own individual lifestyle choice should be subsidized by the rest of society rather than directly paying for the services they personally use.
The streetcar delivers people to shops and stores and restaurants “free”, where they spend money that they would have otherwise spent on their stinking car and parking instead, or wouldn’t have spent because they might not make the trip fearing traffic hassles that are bound to get worse without a transit alternative. The Portland streetcar may be more expensive than a bus line, but pound for pound attracts more riders.
This is a point I use to justify the business excise tax that funds Tri-met. Streetcar opponents exhibit an 18th Century mindset trying to understand 21st Century problems. Bouyah!
“Name one “non-driver” that has ZERO use for the public streets (including the bike lanes and sidewalks built as part of these public streets) but is unfairly forced to subsidize these public thoroughfares.”
I said drivers. Sidewalks are supposed to be paid for by the property owners, so I’m not sure why you are including that anyways. I’m not arguing that we don’t all benefit from roads, we do. But my point is that roads aren’t user pays anymore than the streetcar is.
Your analogy in interesting though. Every time your bus is late, you tell us how it is going to cause the power grid to fail. And since life pretty much grinds to a halt around here when the power grid fails, by extension, we all benefit from your bus…
motorists already pay proportionately more for the infrastructure they use than do the users of transit or bicycle facilities
Terry, owning a car and driving it legally on public streets is a luxury (i.e., non-essential) and a privilege (that must be granted by a state agency). It is only fair that motorists pay “more than their fair share” for this luxury and privilege. It makes no difference that it is a luxury enjoyed by a large majority of the population at this specific time in history, it is still a luxury and should be treated as such. Appropriately, the taxes and fees you pay for your luxury to drive wherever you please whenever you want should heavily subsidize transportation alternatives for those of us who choose to share a transportation system that will take us close to where we want to go approximately when we want to be there. It’s a sliding scale: you walk, you pay nothing and have little convenience; you ride public transit, you pay more and have greater convenience; you have a car, you pay the most and have the greatest convenience. That’s just how things work. You pay the most for your luxury to have the most convenient transportation option. Get over it, and get used to paying more for that luxury, because its only going to get more expensive.
motorists already pay proportionately more for the infrastructure they use than do the users of transit or bicycle facilities
Terry, owning a car and driving it legally on public streets is a luxury (i.e., non-essential) and a privilege (that must be granted by a state agency). It is only fair that motorists pay “more than their fair share” for this luxury and privilege. It makes no difference that it is a luxury enjoyed by a large majority of the population at this specific time in history, it is still a luxury and should be treated as such. Appropriately, the taxes and fees you pay for your luxury to drive wherever you please whenever you want should heavily subsidize transportation alternatives for those of us who choose to share a transportation system that will take us close to where we want to go approximately when we want to be there. It’s a sliding scale: you walk, you pay nothing and have little convenience; you ride public transit, you pay more and have greater convenience; you have a car, you pay the most and have the greatest convenience. That’s just how things work. You pay the most for your luxury to have the most convenient transportation option. Get over it, and get used to paying more for that luxury, because its only going to get more expensive.
I said drivers. Sidewalks are supposed to be paid for by the property owners, so I’m not sure why you are including that anyways. I’m not arguing that we don’t all benefit from roads, we do. But my point is that roads aren’t user pays anymore than the streetcar is.
Yes, they are. The roadway system, in transit-speak, has a higher “farebox recovery” than nearly any form of public transit. While MAX covers most of its operating costs (note that TriMet manages to capitalize most of the maintenance cost, which removes it from the O&M budget and places it in a category where federal dollars, and a mix of general revenues including bus fares, property taxes and payroll taxes all contribute); the Streetcar comes nowhere close – it’s been reported that it’s subsidized to the tune of $30 per boarding ride. Only TriMet’s absolute worst performing bus routes are in that category; TriMet’s best performing routes are better than MAX (including the six-minute interval, heavily labor and diesel cost laden 72 line) and most bus routes are in the $3-10 range.
So if fair is fair, let’s eliminate ALL taxes that go to support transportation infrastructure. You better kiss the Streetcar goodbye. Yet every road that is a part of the National Highway System or the Oregon State Highway System has a 100% cost recovery, since those roads are supported strictly by gas taxes; so the only roads we are talking about are local streets and county roads.
Your analogy in interesting though. Every time your bus is late, you tell us how it is going to cause the power grid to fail. And since life pretty much grinds to a halt around here when the power grid fails, by extension, we all benefit from your bus…
No, I never once said that. I compared bus service (as a subset as transportation options) to an electric utility. I never said that a lack of transportation options would result in a loss of electric power; they are two entirely different things.
But under your logic, it’s OK to eliminate one option (busses) by disinvesting in them; or that it’s OK that everyone pays for a Streetcar even if they are 20 miles away from it; but people who DIRECTLY BENEFIT from a publicly owned and operated street in front of their home should not have to pay for that access, the ability for people (not necessarily themselves) to use that street, etc.
If only drivers should pay for the streets, I’m OK with that because my property taxes would plummet, and Streetcar riders would have to pay $30 each time they step on the Streetcar; while a bus rider would only have to pay $3. And fortunately for me, Barbur Blvd. is a state highway (which again is 100% user-fee (through the gas tax) supported).
Congrats Chris on the new segment’s opening. See you there…all you naysayers should come to the party, ride & enjoy Streetcar, and lighten up.
The Streetcar is an overwhelming success by any measure…private investment, ridership, fun. Its been a key piece in the building/rebuilding of Portland’s close in westside neighborhoods. If you love cities and this city in particular, you gotta love Streetcar; if not, well of course its a waste.
My fingers are crossed that the City approves the Loop funding in September and that opens in a few years with locally built Portland cars.
PS the pace of development on Interstate is just fine…slow, but steady so as not to price long time residents and businesses out. When MAX gets to Vancouver, it will really unit our two towns.
The Lovejoy problem is a joke. It’s because people are being absolute dumb asses. Yeah, I said it, absolute dumb asses. It has NOTHING to do with Streetcar, if the streetcar wasn’t there during the clog, it would just be 40-80 more cars clogged up in that street.
The stupid thing is that there are multiple, YEAH MULTIPLE other routes to take to get on that bridge. But people funnel down that road and get themselves clogged up.
Also the solution doesn’t need a “study”. This is the problem with idiotic beauracracy. Anyway with half a brain and some sense on how roads allow throughput, basic management techniques, would realize how many fixes are available. Things we could do RIGHT NOW instead of waiting what will probably be months, or years. Meanwhile the people that live on the street (like me) get to smell the stench of 8 zillion autos backed up because people can’t figure out that there are two completely empty routes merely 2 blocks over from Lovejoy. Broadway could also handle the traffic without problem. The bottleneck is simply too many people going down a single lane street. Every light change, and misguided turn, every attempt at making a left, leads to more minutes of congestion.
…I honestly, can’t believe the Lovejoy back up issue, because realistically, it shouldn’t be an issue. Streetcar or not.
“Streetcar opponents exhibit an 18th Century mindset trying to understand 21st Century problems. Bouyah!”
>>>> Good try, attempting to justify an obsolete 19th century transit modality. But it doesn’t work.
“The Lovejoy problem is a joke.”
With buses, you could easily reroute if things get very bad, clogwise.
Just image what this would do to the service if the line was ever extended to LO.
Now the trolley jollies are going to repeat the same thing on MLK/Grand. Incredible. But not really unbelievable, given the transit mentality here in Portland.
i count myself as one of those dumbasses that adron talks about, driving on lovejoy.
SOME BACKGROUND: i moved away from portland to SF from 2000 till about a year ago. just got my car a few months ago. i have a bizarre relationship with the pearl. i keep orienting myself with a non-existant ramp- and i get lost constantly.
anyway, if y’all remember the 90’s, it was possible to zip thru the entire pearl as a back way to and away from downtown or NW.
now? wow, bad idea. anyway, my point is, there is no way- NO WAY- the streetcar is responsible for the majority of that traffic. its the PEOPLE. that area was a slightly scary ghost town before. now its just teeming with activity.
so yea, its harder to get thru there, but there is so much more “there” there, that its pointless to expect a good auto traffic flow.
“Yes, they are. The roadway system, in transit-speak, has a higher “farebox recovery” than nearly any form of public transit.”
Gas taxes pay about a third of PDOT’s budget. That is very similar to MAX actually.
“While MAX covers most of its operating costs (note that TriMet manages to capitalize most of the maintenance cost, which removes it from the O&M budget and places it in a category where federal dollars, and a mix of general revenues including bus fares, property taxes and payroll taxes all contribute);”
That is very simalar to how the roads work too. What do you imagine the value of all the land that is taken up by pavement is worth? Now where in PDOT’s budget do you see that cost? It isn’t there, so we all end up paying for it.
“The Streetcar comes nowhere close – it’s been reported that it’s subsidized to the tune of $30 per boarding ride.”
No it isn’t. The streetcar carries 2+M people a year, so if it was being subsidized at $30/head, that means that the subsidy is $60M/year. The capital costs for the initial loop was $57M, so the only way for the subsidy to be $30/head is if we assume they got a 75% APR interest rate, and were planning on ripping it all out tomorrow.
There are three new massive buildings that will be complete along Lovejoy in the coming two years… housing hundreds of new people, a brand new Safeway, and offices. Traffic is going to get about twice as worse…
They seriously should toll Lovejoy, ban left-hand turns, or make it a reversible one-way during rush hour. Northrup is ALWAYS empty of traffic, so they could also make those streets a couplet, although that might make it less habitable…
“There are three new massive buildings that will be complete along Lovejoy in the coming two years…”
>>>> And watch what happens when the Eastside streetcar line opens on Grand and MLK–it could be even worse than Lovejoy. We are stuck with a totally inflexible transit mode here.
Along with the potenitally disastrous (15 mph top speed!)new transit mall slated to open in 2009, we could be watching the rail cabal committing suicide.
Too bad this has to happen to a wonderful city like Portland. Don’t say that you were not forewarned.
Nick –
Please explain your position more clearly – I don’t see how the streetcar is a problem compared to buses either on Lovejoy or on MLK/Grand.
Lovejoy is two lanes, each running in an opposite direction. If the streetcar were gone and buses used in its place, the buses would not be able to pass slow traffic and would not operate any faster. You’d have to run more buses, even if they are articulated models, which adds to congestion, and most buses have fewer boarding doors and slower acceleration than the streetcar, further hampering operating speed.
You could take away the curb extensions, but then buses would have problems merging in and out of traffic and schedule reliability would be diminished.
The only argument in favor of buses with respect to Lovejoy is that they don’t promote the same intensity of development, so less people would be living in and visiting the Pearl District in the first place, leading to lower congestion as a result of less economic activity. Is that what you want?
Northrup is another streetcar street, configured just like Lovejoy, 2 blocks away. It has very low traffic and is rarely congested.
The point is that Lovejoy is where the people want to be. You decry the “inflexibility” of the streetcar, but what would you do? Banish transit altogether from Lovejoy? That’s the kind of “flexibility” that turns people off of using transit and causes developers to scale back plans.
As for MLK/Grand, these streets are multi-lane and the bus stops already use curb extensions, so the presence of the streetcar will have minimal impact on traffic speeds or passing compared to buses, except that the streetcar boards and accelerates faster.
So, what is it that you would do to improve Lovejoy? Remove transit altogether? Remove curb extensions and make buses wait for breaks in traffic?
Other solutions such as a couplet can be done relatively simply without having to do anything different with the streetcar.
Finally, your quip about the “15 mph top speed” transit mall shows an ignorance of history: The transit mall has always operated with the signals timed in this range. The whole downtown grid is timed somewhere between 12mph and 18mph depending on the area.
I await the suicide of your fictional rail cabal. Then maybe we won’t have to hear about it from you anymore.
Not forewarned? At this point you’re practically like a guy on a street corner with a big “end of the world is nigh” sign.
– Bob R.
Joseph, bicycle lanes and other bicycle infrastructure on public right-of-ways are a luxury (i.e., non-essential) and a privilege (that must be approved by a government agency). It is only fair that bicyclists directly pay the majority of the costs for the use of this luxury and privilege. It makes no difference that it is a luxury is only used by just a small large percentage of the population at this specific time in history, bicycle lanes and infrastructure are still a luxury, should be treated as such and paid for only by the user bicyclists. Appropriately, the taxes and fees drivers pay to drive for whatever reason should in no way subsidize transportation alternatives for those who choose to use other specialized transportation systems wherever they please whenever they want that will take them where they want to go and be there whenever they please. The scales of taxation must be equitably balanced under the tax fairness principal of user pays; you ride public transit, you should pay for the costs of providing the service; you ride a bike, you pay for the costs of bicycle infrastructure, you drive, you pay for roadway infrastructure only with none of the other social engineering garbage and costs to subsidize other modes of transport added in. Convenience has nothing to do with it. That’s just how tax fairness principals work; you pay for what you use. People who use more pay more, but everybody (including bicyclists) pay proportionately for what they use. It is past due time bicyclists and transit riders pay their own way for the luxuries they receive with the transportation option they choose. Bicyclists need to get over their freeloading ways and start accepting some financial responsibility for the exclusive infrastructure they use instead of complaining about the drivers that have financed their private right-of-ways. Transit riders too need to start paying a far greate4 share of the true costs of providing the service of the true. And motorists need to completely stop subsidizing the other modes of transport
All the neighborhood Streetcar visionaries should take close note of this struggle to get the local funds. If you want a Streetcar up Hawthorne, or Broadway/Wiedler you need to be prepared for:
Paid parking to over the city’s share of operations.
Funny, but I don’t recall that discussion at ALL during the Council hearing on the Streetcar LID. The fact is the Central Eastside Industrial District is mostly oppossed to the installation of meters, even those who support the LID…but as this project is cobbled together, one step at a time, the Council’s being led down a path it may not be cognizant of.
A LID (Local Improvment District) to cover a portion of local capital share.
If the Streetcar Loop LID goes through, it includes a promise that property owners where all the “new development” will occur may not be assessed for east/west connecting LIDs for ten years. Any hope of tapping into new development for Hawthorne, Division, Belmont streetcars…forget it. In the meantime, new development continues apace in our close-in neighborhoods, while SDC money paid by this new development is going to…fund transportation infrastructure that doesn’t support us.
I know…we can use Central Eastside TIF money. Nah, that’ll be gone.
I’ve heard of robbing Peter to pay Paul. But this is robbing Peter to pay for Paul’s streetcar fare to get to Peter’s house to rob him again!
At one of the open houses on Transportation SDCs, there was a PDOT handout expressing how neigborhood opposition to SDC fees and new development is reduced when people feel they’re paying for infrastructure that serves –and mitigates for– that new development. I wish more PDOT staff were reading their own handouts. What they were handing out is right on.
Parking is definitely being talked about the project advisory committee, which includes a lot of representation by the CEIC, and I’m sure you’ll hear about it at the September 6th Council session in the context of operating funding.
As for TIF, Central Eastside TIF can only be used inside the district boundaries. We’ll need a different source for any construction east of 12th, i.e., most of a Hawthorne line.
A bond measure might be a viable way to fund a longer streetcar line — Hawthorne out to Lents, Sandy out to Park Rose Transit Center, or a North Portland line to St. Johns, for example. Portlanders have approved every light rail proposal ever put before them for a vote. They might approve a streetcar line as long as it seemed more of a city-scale transit project than a neighborhood amenity.
A longer line (5 to 8 miles) also might have the potential to compete for federal funding, as long as it was designed to move people quickly — meaning, widely spaced stops and maybe some dedicated right-of-way to move quickly through bottlenecks. Higher capacity might help as well — say, 120 foot cars.
Build streetcar primarily as a transportation project rather than a development magnet (although it should serve both purposes), and maybe you can fund it the old-fashioned way: a public bond measure plus state lottery funds to trigger a federal funding match.
“A longer line (5 to 8 miles) also might have the potential to compete for federal funding, as long as it was designed to move people quickly — meaning, widely spaced stops and maybe some dedicated right-of-way to move quickly through bottlenecks. Higher capacity might help as well –say, 120 foot cars..”
>>>> And how many people would lose their local bus stops, just like on Interstate Avenue? Limited stop bus service, with articulated buses, in addition to regular buses, could do a better job, with much more flexibility, instead of spending a fortune on an obsolete method of transport.
I can’t get over how many ways people can dream up to waste public monies.
Well, at least this scheme does not invoke the “development” myth.
As far as Hawthorne Blvd. is concerned, it is unsuitable for regular operation of articulated buses. I’ve yet to speak to a single TriMet operator, on or off the record, who thinks that articulated buses are good for Hawthorne with its narrow 9.5′ lanes. I’ve been told it is among the most stressful routes, even for the 40′ buses that must navigate it today — buses routinely have to cross lane markings to avoid bikes, people going to/from parked cars, etc. That’s a major reason why I think Hawthorne is a good candidate for streetcars — streetcars are narrower, board faster, accelerate faster, and do not need to weave in and out of traffic.
I can’t get over how many ways people can dream up to waste public monies.
I can’t get over how many ways people can dream up to complain about sensible ideas.
– Bob R.
Nick: The lanes on Hawthorne are too narrow for articulated buses: They just don’t have the lane control, even Erik agrees with that. But that would be a cheap thing to fix, just re-stripe the road so that it is one lane in each direction (a la LoveJoy,) and then you’ll get your articulated buses, stuck in worse traffic, with no way to pass each other even though some of them are “express.” Also, lets hope nobody has to walk too far to get to their express stop.
As far as I can determine, the narrow lanes on Hawthorne only extend from 12th Avenue to 39th Avenue, 27 blocks, or a little over 1 1/4 miles. This is something that can be lived with, IMO.
So even if articulated buses are not feasible, using regular buses is still way preferable to a trolley line. Right, now there are some limited-stop and express buses that run during rush hour.
With rail, you lose all flexiblilty of service (all-stop all the time, absolutely no passing each other). And forget it if there is an accident–the whole service goes to hell with trolleys.
Also, how many people are going to be riding for free on tolleys? (Bus operator = Fare Inspector)
And security–especially if the line goes out to Lents?
“Also, lets hope nobody has to walk too far to get to their express stop.”
>>>> With local AND limited/express buses running on Hawthorne, no one has to walk too far to get to his/her stop.
With trolleys, it’s all stops, all the time. Absolutely no flexiblity of service.
“With local AND limited/express buses running on Hawthorne, no one has to walk too far to get to his/her stop.”
Yes, but only the lucky few get fast service, everyone else either has to transfer, (which slows down their trip,) or just ride the slow bus all the way there, (also slow.) What would you suggest people do? I think walking to the express stops seems like a good idea.
“With trolleys, it’s all stops, all the time.”
New talking point? You’ve mentioned it twice now. Too bad it isn’t true: the Streetcar doesn’t stop unless you request it. MAX stops at every stop, but it is very rare that somebody doesn’t get on/off, (the two notable exceptions are for things like the 3:30am Red Line out of Beaverton, and the stop that was in the middle of a grassy field and as such weren’t even listed on the route map.)
Nick, Nick… Your your 1 1/4 miles of line that can be “lived with” (actually, 1.5 miles) comprises the densest, most heavily trafficked (cars, bikes, pedestrians), most developed part of the east side of the line.
That small segment is responsible for more than 25% of all of the boardings. Downtown to 39th comprises 70% of all boardings for the #14, in about 40% of the total route length.
That’s exactly the kind of ridership density that can be well-served by streetcars. And although you are loathe to hear it, beyond that point there is development potential, especially along Foster Rd. to Lents. But apparently you’d rather just demonize the Lents neighborhood as a freeloading security risk.
In case you hadn’t noticed, the Hawthorne corridor was built by streetcar service. Buses today run over substantially the same route. There hasn’t been “flexibility of service” for over 100 years – the businesses are there, the people are there, the road is there, the transit is there. What we are deciding now is what mode of transit will continue to serve and develop that corridor, what it will cost, and how it will fit with the other modes of transportation.
– Bob R.
Wells said,
“Streetcar opponents exhibit an 18th Century mindset trying to understand 21st Century problems. Bouyah!”
Did you not see Nick’s photo of the German made “Rail Bus” or “Schienebus”. This thing is a lot more advanced than what Portland offers because—-it makes economic sense. And there is no reason why we could not go a step further and produce something like it for those long suburban lines that already have a rail track in place. Having a diesel engine it should be able to run on biodiesel– so a consortium of suburban communities could possibly pool together for a supply of biodiesel. It’s double decked. Well, here:http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/de/diesel/dmu/670/670001cs.jpg
I am not saying that Portland always has to reinvent the wheel—-I’m not kicking about the present streetcar system—but I think we deserve to find more cost-effective solutons for those longer reasches to outlying communities—that are now going into the hundreds of million and even billions of dollars.
The only drawback I can see with something like this German vehicle is that there might be some low overhead in places. Also, punks might go upstairs and start fights… I have been on some double decked trains before. Is there really a need for eight or nine feet of headroom in a public transit vehicle?
My point—and I thank Erik for his input–is that there is a lot of rail infrastructure already in place–in Portland and in other areas–and it is already well-demonstrated that trolley cars can run on those rails and be powered with a diesel engines. And most diesels–at least in the size we would use– can be modified to biodiesel.
Well, I have ridden a lot of trolleys, esp. in Philadelphia during the 1960’s and 70’s, and can tell you those things are SLOW in narrow and narrow laned streets. (But I like the reopening of #15-Girard Avenue, outside of city center, with rebuilt PCC’s–runs past the zoo–good for tourists.)
Streetcar on Hawthorne’s narrow lanes would be at the mercy of every car pulling in and out of parking spaces, and every other obstruction. At least a bus has some maneuverability. and forget about accidents!
It is just very illogical to put transit vehicles with absolutely NO lateral maneuverability in streets with dynamic traffic situations, ESPECIALLY in the 21st century!
“Yes, but only the lucky few get fast service, everyone else either has to transfer, (which slows down their trip,) or just ride the slow bus all the way there, (also slow.)”
>>>> Express service is oriented to 39th Avenue and beyond. Limited service is oriented to both inner and outer portions. The local bus, west of 39th Avenue does not involve very long travel times to downtown. The advantage lies in people west of 39th Avenue being able to board the bus in the first place in the morning.
Thus the flexibility advantage of buses as opposed to immobile rail.
Since we’re now talking about Hawthorne, and since my name has been interjected twice in recent days, I’ll add a few comments:
I actually do believe that Hawthorne would be a good street for Streetcar operations. While I disagree that TriMet employees have disliked driving the artics on this street (I have heard from drivers of liking the artics on this street), I sure wouldn’t want to have to drive near a bus – any bus (or large truck) – on this street. Fortunately I don’t have to.
There is existing density (not new density; Streetcar wouldn’t be a subsidy vehicle to rich out-of-state developers) that already makes substantial use of transit.
And the Hawthorne business/residential area is a short distance from downtown Portland; along with potential routes to Belmont and Sellwood (not Milwaukie); all of which could converge together on the Hawthorne Bridge (not Caruthers) and meet at a central location to connect with busses and MAX.
While I continue to see that Streetcar has its drawbacks as Nick has clearly pointed out (more than once the existing Streetcar line has had to be bailed out by busses), if we’re going to continue with Streetcar service, Hawthorne, Belmont and Sellwood (and possibly Sandy up to Hollywood, and I’m sure there’s a few other neighborhoods I could get into) would be the ideal location – and allow regional (i.e. TriMet) bus service to run express in these areas.
However, I will maintain my opinion that as long as Streetcar and MAX systems continue to deprive the bus system from capital investment, and so long as our transit system is purely a regional system (i.e. TriMet), I cannot support further investment in Streetcar until the bus system is recapitalized and brought current in terms of capital investment.
Erik –
I’m glad to see there are a few areas of agreement in there… hopefully we can build on that together in the future.
– Bob R.
The TIF money is being used up for the streetcar loop, leaving none for east-west travel into the neighborhoods, even within the urban renewal boundary.
And there’s been zero discussion with the inner SE residential neighborhoods about the impact of parking meters, which seem to be a required component for paying operating expenses. The Hawthorne Boulevard Business Association certainly rejected parking meters on Hawthorne when proposed earlier.
What concerns me the most, however, is the promise to not charge property owners for any futher streetcars for ten years. That leaves the CEID with a north-south route, but an inability to contribute to east-west routes, despite all the development that will occur there. That’s unprecedented. The City doesn’t tell people, who live on a corner, well if the pay for the street you front on the east, you don’t have to pay for the street going north. Yet we’re promising all the new development that they’re off the hook –for ten years– for paying for any further streetcars. In the meantime, there’s an operating budget shortfall for our bus lines. (And no TIF money to build our community center, either.)
The streetcar isn’t bad in the abstract. It’s the priorities that it is being used to serve that fall short here, Chris.
Frank, a couple of points:
1) I don’t believe parking meters in the CEIC can come online fast enough to produce the year one operating funding, so I think there will be time for that ocnversation to happen in the content of better service levels. If I had to guess, I would say the existing meter district in the Lloyd will be asked to look at changes to shoulder the year one funding.
2) I agree that the conversation about priorities got short changed. I think that happened for two reasons. First the tight time lines to apply for the Federal dollars. But second, PDC didn’t convene the conversations (and since we’re talking about TIF, they ARE the convener). Sam asked for $31M and PDC budgeted $9M and left it at that. If they had convened a broader conversation, we’d be in a better place now.
But I think there is still some opportunity. While the City needs to commit to $27M in TIF in September, we have a couple of years before we spend it, and we could use that time for a conversation about how to allocate it among the districts, or even if we can find non-TIF sources as a replacement (although I don’t think that’s very likely).
Williams/Vancouver to Killingsworth actually might be the best next Streetcar line…the couplet is in or close to two URAs, has many vacant and developable parcels, two large institutions/destinations (Emanuel & PCC Cascade) and is seeing lots of new development.
What’s missing? Neighborhood/grassroots desire for this kind of project, which is really key.
Streetcar really started as a vision on the streets of NW and inner westside Portland; it was the grassroots who sold it to the City and the business/development folks, not the other way around. It is real community transit.
Mike, here are some quick answers. You can find additional info on http://www.portlandstreetcar.org, although the navigation is a little challenging.
Daily Ridership: about 10,000 on weekdays, slightly less on weekend days
Annual Operating Costs: around $3M
Infrastructure Costs: about $100M for the current alignment, which was built in 4 phases, this includes 10 vehicles that were purchased at different times for prices ranging from $2M to $2.6M each.
Chris,
Thanks for the quick response. Where on streetcar.org might that info be? I couldn’t find much in the web pages; I did quickly skim the last 6 CAC minutes but didn’t see much there either. I’ll rise to the challenge:-) but need a little guidance.
The numbers above are very helpful. If 10,000 boarded every day, we’d have 3.65 million a year.
OK, let’s say it’s only 3 million a year because the weekends are lighter (the cars are just as crowded but there are fewer runs per day). Let’s say operating costs are just $3 million. I think that comes out to $1.00 per ride, which is a far cry from the $30/ride someone asserted above.
Is it possible that poster was including capital costs? OK, let’s add that in. $100 million for infrastructure, and let’s say $25 million for the 10 cars (just to keep the arithmetic simple:-)).
Over how many years does our poster want to amortize those capital costs over the ridership? Let’s choose (say) 10 years. So that’s $12.5 million a year, plus $3 million operating costs, or $15 million a year. Divide that by our 3 million riders, and we get $5 per rider. That’s still a factor of 6 smaller than that $30 per ride.
And that assumes
Am I making sense in my analysis? If I’m wrong, can someone correct it, please?
Finally, Chris, maybe you can prevail on the streetcar.org folks to make their data a little more accessible.
Thanks!
Mike
Mike, you’re pretty much on the money (although the $100M included the vehicle costs).
On the Streetcar site, look under construction and under community impact (both in the left hand nav). I agree that we need to upgrade the web site and will make sure the CAC keeps a focus on this.
As to the operating revenue, farebox and passes are about $100K per year. This is so low because of two factors:
1) Most of the line is in fareless square.
2) For the portions outside fareless square, many riders are holding a TriMet fare instrument (they can use a TriMet pass, transfer or individual ticket), so TriMet collects the revenue, Streetcar does not (but we don’t complain since they cover 2/3rds of our operating costs).
There may be changes coming soon to the portlandstreetcar.org web site — I’ll post more info when the details are finalized.
– Bob R.
Chris,
Thanks for confirming my analysis.
Your statement about operating revenue raises another question, which I think is pertinent. Please excuse my naivete, but I’m new in town and so missed a lot of earlier history.
I did another little bit of math. Suppose I live in Northwest, near the 23rd Ave loop, and work at KOIN Center or one of the courthouses around 3rd and Madison.
Google Maps tells me that’s a distance of roughly 2 miles. My home is outside Fareless Square, but I use the streetcar twice a day, 5 days a week, so I buy a $100. annual pass. My hundred bucks is about 59 single ($1.70) tickets.
OK, now let’s say I live on the East Side, like SE 23rd and Hawthorne. Also just about 2 miles from work, by the #14 bus. Also outside Fareless Square in the first zone.
The cheapest annual TriMet pass is a 2-zoner, for $715., which is about 420 single tickets. That’s 210 commuting days a year before I get a payoff for being a regular commuter.
It’s true I get to ride a lot more bus lines, but I don’t need all those lines, just my regular short hop on the #14.
I moved to Portland from the Washington, DC area, which probably has the most byzantine, politically-cobbled-together transit fare structure in the nation, maybe the world. One of Portland’s real attractions for me was the ease of use of the TriMet system.
The streetcar just adds to the accessibility. I surmise that the Streetcar pass is so cheap to encourage regular riders at the outer ends to pay. Since there’s little to no enforcement (unlike the MAX), there’s not much incentive to buy a ticket.
But why are the regular TriMet riders paying so much more? Why no 1-zone annual pass? Or maybe even a 1-line pass, good only for getting from the inner East Side to town and back on that #14?
I figure this will come up — big time — as we get deeper into planning the East Side streetcar. I hope Portland isn’t going to start balkanizing its transit fares! It has a LONG way to go to catch up to DC, but still…
Mike
Mike, I think you’ve got the key points:
1) A TriMet pass buys you access to a lot more lines than the Streetcar pass does, even if you don’t use those other lines.
and
2) Why don’t we have a zone-1 pass?
I wouldn’t be surprised if the conversation about how to fund Streetcar operations from OMSI all the way to RiverPlace (the initial Federal application will only call for service from OMSI to the Pearl) involves creating a real zone-1 fare (including a pass) and having it apply to most or all of the Streetcar Loop.
P.S. I have encourage PSI to raise the Streetcar pass price at every opportunity I have had :-)
Chris,
I’ve lived in Portland for just over a year and really enjoy this blog. I live along the Streetcar and ride it frequently. I’m following the discussion on the desirability of the eastside Streetcar line. In assessing this, it would definitely help to have the facts on the existing line.
Since you are (I think) chair of the Citizens Advisory Committee, I hope you can answer this question:
Where can the public find out some of the key financial figures for the existing line? For example:
I haven’t found this information on the web anywhere. On 4/4/2007, Reilly Bates posted a ridership-trend chart on Sam Adams’ blog, but did not give a source for it, and the numbers are too small to read.
Generally speaking, I’ve found Portland governance to be quite free-wheeling but also unusually transparent. Indeed, it’s one of the main reasons my wife and I moved here.
I see many pro-and-con assertions on this blog and elsewhere that I think some transparent discussions of the actual (or best estimate) Streetcar numbers might help to tone down the rhetoric, or at least let people base their flames on fact rather than myth.
Can you/will you help me (all of us!) out here? If this stuff is out there on the web, please give us the URL(s). If not, do you have the info to post here?
Thanks much in advance!
Mike Feldman (not the radio guy:-))
Chris,
Just one more comment. Raising the price of the Streetcar Pass might be a good idea. But lowering the TriMet pass price — for a short ride — is also desirable.
I hope the PSI and TriMet planners can get together and harmonize the two fare structures so that the price of a ticket (and of the various passes) depends on the distance traveled and the frequency with which you use the system. It ought not to depend on whether you take a bus, a light-rail train, or a streetcar (or indeed a cable tram or a Washington County DMU!).
Portland has a great public transit system, and it’s getting even better. But the planners need to be careful to make it, and keep it, seamless. A rider shouldn’t have to care about the finances or organizational politics behind a given route!
Mike
Personally, I’d rather get rid of the zone system (and fareless square) completely. Just charge a flat fee to ride the system for a couple of hours, or for a day, week or month.
One thing Tri-met is doing (or says they’re doing) is trying to make the system more accessible to new riders. But I’ve run into a fair number of new riders trying to figure out the zone system. Tri-Met’s zone system is arbitrary (a short ride can cost you much more than a long one; for example, it’s cheaper to tax MAX from Sunset Transit Center to Hillsboro than one stop to the Oregon Zoo) and confusing to new riders who are having a tough enough time figuring out the ticket vending machines. And the system really isn’t large enough for a zone system to make much sense.
“Keeping it simple” should mean one fare for bus, MAX, or streetcar, (or tram or DMU) and charging a round number fare ($2 or $2.25) to ride.
(Bus operator = Fare Inspector)
Technically not true; this has been a sticking point between the agencies and the transit union for quite some time now. Ex., the issues they run into when they politely say “I’m sorry sir, this transfer expired an hour ago,” and the would-be passenger goes off on an obscenity-laden tirade. There have been actual uniformed fare inspectors (who can turn $1.70 rides into $94 rides) on the buses for several years now.
Express service is oriented to 39th Avenue and beyond…. The local bus, west of 39th Avenue does not involve very long travel times to downtown.
If we’re talking about the 14E-Hawthorne Express runs, there’s a grand total of two outbound runs during PM rush only – there are no AM express runs at all (but at certain times, they’re scheduled 3 minutes apart). 9L-Powell Limited has a few PM-only runs (some inbound signs say “Limited Stop,” but there’s currently none on the schedule), and 4L-Division Limited runs were canceled with the Transit Mall closure/construction.
Why no 1-zone annual pass?
TriMet has actually asked the question ‘what about having no 1 Zone price?’ (note: these used to be called “Short Hopper” tickets), at their 2001 TIP meetings. I personally commented that it would be the equivalent of walking into a store, trying to buy one item, and being told ‘sorry, you have to buy at least two items, we don’t have a one-item price.’ I’m not 100% sure if that comment made a difference, but there’s still 1 Zone tickets available in books of 10.
Personally, I’d rather get rid of the zone system (and fareless square) completely.
I agree with the fareless square comment, as it has outlived its original purpose. I do think the zone system is a little skewed, I posted some theoretical 1 Zone trips a while back, where certain shorter trips (or similar trips on other routes) are 2 or even 3 Zone fares, since instead of going downtown you’re on one of the radial routes. It wouldn’t surprise me if the higher fare for going into Downtown Portland is why there are still not that many routes that act as rings rather than spokes.
One word of caution about switching to ‘all trips cost the same’ – after C-TRAN eliminated transfers in 2005, people have said that folks have called in to work because they couldn’t afford to get there that day – they didn’t have the $1.25 per bus (or $3 for all-day). So, even though changing TriMet’s fares to a similar system seems like a good idea, would ‘all trips cost $1.90’ (pulling this out of my head based on halfway between $1.75 and $2.05) cause more harm than good?
Actually, I was thinking $2.00 for a two hour ticket, pretty much what Tri-Met does now. Unlimited rides within two hours of purchase. Get a printed ticket with an expiration time on it. Make as many transfers as you like within that time, or even a round trip. And $2.00 because it’s easy; no fumbling with change.
Unless you find some source of funds to underwrite the cost, you are talking about raising fairs for inner city residents, while lowering them for people traveling to and from the suburbs. Perhaps the solution is to expand fareless square to the entire city of Portland as Vera Katz suggested a few years ago.
Portland has a great public transit system, and it’s getting even better. But the planners need to be careful to make it, and keep it, seamless. A rider shouldn’t have to care about the finances or organizational politics behind a given route!
Seamlessness in the fare system has always been a high priority for Streetcar.
Unless you find some source of funds to underwrite the cost, you are talking about raising fairs for inner city residents, while lowering them for people traveling to and from the suburbs. Perhaps the solution is to expand fareless square to the entire city of Portland as Vera Katz suggested a few years ago.
Not sure how you get there, Ross. Nobody in the Streetcar funding conversation is talking about reducing fares outside downtown. The equation is more like:
less free trips downtown -> more downtown service
[Note that I did NOT specify eliminating all free trips downtown.]
Sorry Chris. I failed to quote what I was responding to:
“I’d rather get rid of the zone system (and fareless square) completely. Just charge a flat fee to ride the system for a couple of hours, or for a day, week or month.”
So my response above was to eliminating the zone system entirely.
As for the streetcar only pass, I think that has always been inappropriate. You can’t get a 14 line only bus pass for a lower price.
Unless you find some source of funds to underwrite the cost, you are talking about raising fairs for inner city residents, while lowering them for people traveling to and from the suburbs. Perhaps the solution is to expand fareless square to the entire city of Portland as Vera Katz suggested a few years ago.
Yes, but I don’t see the problem with raising fares. We’re talking about– worst case — a quarter. Beginning in September, the fare will be $1.75 for 1 or 2 zones, $2.05 for all zones. Harmonizing the fare at either $1.75 or $2.00 for everyone simplifies the system, which makes it more accessible to new riders.
It’s a question of priorities: do you keep a more complex system in the name of “fairness” (recognizing that there will always be inequities because of the arbitrary nature of zone boundaries) or go for a simple, user-friendly system that costs a few peope more while saving money for others? Personally, I prefer simplicity.
(And twenty-five cent fare hikes years apart instead of the annual nickel-and-dime increases. In my view, it’s ridiculous to that the occasional rider must remember to show up with a nickel on hand to avoid overpayment. Keep the fares expressed in dollars and quarters.)
As for making fareless square city-wide, I understand there’s a case to be made for free public transit, but I’d rather see lower fares than “free” service. I dislike free rides because of my belief (which I admit is based on observation and anecdote rather than science) that people don’t value anything that is “free” to them.
As for making fareless square city-wide, I understand there’s a case to be made for free public transit, but I’d rather see lower fares than “free” service. I dislike free rides because of my belief (which I admit is based on observation and anecdote rather than science) that people don’t value anything that is “free” to them.
I like Fareless Square — see below.
For now I want to take issue with your second sentence. I think you’re being quite selective in singling out free transit. We get lots of “free rides”: police and fire service, to name two. These services are not free, but we don’t bill people for them use-by-use.
Back in the 18th century, fire brigades were operated by insurance companies. You put a company medallion on your house, and if you weren’t a customer, they’d happily let your house burn down. (I grew up in Philadelphia, where the 18th-century old-town houses still have these medallions on them – now they’re a status symbol.) Along the way, our society came to the notion that fire service ought to be funded from tax revenues.
I don’t know whether AMR bills for paramedic calls. I certainly hope not; other cities have real problems with that mess. And if I need a cop, I wanna be able to call one without receiving a bill. Maybe you’re philosophically opposed to public schools, but I kinda like ’em. My kids are long since past school age, but I don’t mind paying taxes to support other peoples’ kids in school.
The point is that one person’s “free ride” is another person’s “invaluable community service”. I think thoughtful people can disagree on which services ought to be funded from general tax revenue and which from “user fees” of one kind or another. I certainly value the services I get from TriMet and Streetcar; I have a car but use it as rarely as possible. I’m thinking of plunking down my $100. for a Streetcar pass, even though I rarely ride it outside the free zone. Call me crazy, but I like the Streetcar that much.
I’m happy to see part of my taxes go to Fareless Square, as I find it most convenient, not to mention highly attractive to downtown and Lloyd District visitors. (I wondered about the little gerrymander that extended Fareless Square to Lloyd, then I realized how handy it is for conventioneers and tourists.)
I don’t think we’ll ever see the political will to make transit free region-wide, but if we ever got a chance to vote on it, I’d vote yes and willingly cough up the taxes to pay for it. Then we could throw away the expensive fare boxes and ticket machines, let those MAX fare inspectors look after safety issues (or find other work altogether), and let our bus drivers just drive, instead of worrying about the expiration times on transfers.
Who knows? Stranger things have happened.:-)
Mike
Technically not true; this has been a sticking point between the agencies and the transit union for quite some time now. Ex., the issues they run into when they politely say “I’m sorry sir, this transfer expired an hour ago,” and the would-be passenger goes off on an obscenity-laden tirade. There have been actual uniformed fare inspectors (who can turn $1.70 rides into $94 rides) on the buses for several years now.
In the last four years that I have ridden the bus on a daily basis I have seen only three instances (and they were about two weeks apart) where fare inspectors were checking bus fares; they were inspecting all busses at Tigard TC. This was more of a “crackdown” that was short-lived; I’ve never seen an inspector on a bus again – and I ride twice a day, every day if not more.
The bus operators’ duty is still to ensure fare collection, whether or not they like it. Some operators skirt their job by not dealing with it (because they have to balance fare collection with keeping the bus on time and customer service); other operators would rather let the fare evader make a jackass of themselves. Just a month ago we sat at a stop for at least four minutes because someone refused to pay fare (he finally did).
The bus operators’ duty is still to ensure fare collection, whether or not they like it.
Actually this is not correct. The bus drivers are instructed not to “enforce” fare collection because of the potential liability if a confrontation ensues. They have been instructed to press the “Fare Evasion” button on their computer. Theoretically this alerts dispatch that a “fare evader” is on that specific bus, so they could use that information to send out Transit Police, but I am not aware of a specific situation where they have actually done so.
Regarding fare-free transit:
The alternet link djk provided above leads to a very good article with some good conversation in response.
The whole idea of fare-free transit is interesting politically, economically, and socially. People think in strange ways about it.
Having lived near Washington, DC for over 30 years, I got to know the transit system and the surrounding issues and culture. Not too many years ago, there was a semi-serious discussion about the costs of collecting fares and whether they exceeded the revenues enough to make the whole thing worthwhile.
One of the more interesting reactions was from (if memory serves) a representative of the regional transit authority, who conjectured (with a straight face) that if DC-area subways and buses were free, the resulting crowds would seriously exceed the system’s capacity.
Those of us who consider transit to be a “public good” can ponder the irony. Here we are, building good systems and persuading people to use them, and then the transit authority tells us, in essence, that the fares are designed to keep people away. Fares are, in essence, designed to obviate the need for enough investment to handle the people who want to ride.
Go figure. Mondo bizarro, eh? :-)
Mike
PS – He may have a point, in the Portland case. MAX is carrying 110,000 riders a day, and is loaded to the gills during the rush hour. The trains (apparently) can’t safely run with much closer headways, and a 2-car train fills up our 200-foot blocks, so it’s impossible to go to 3-car trains even if we wanted to buy them. The Mall reopening will increase the downtown capacity, but how many trains an hour can the Steel Bridge carry? So if MAX were free, could the system handle the crowds?
Fare free has a lot of merit for a lot of reasons. One of which is that the cost per person goes down as you add more people, so even though Terry would complain that TriMet riders were a bunch of freeloaders, we’d be a fairly cheap group of freeloaders as freeloaders go… For those that are worried that TriMet would attract undesirables if it was free, that is sort of true and sort of not. The law abiding citizens on the system would outnumber the undesirables to such high numbers that it wouldn’t really matter. Look at the streetcar, yes, some of the people on there are probably not the greatest, but since it is almost always just packed in the first place, nobody feels unsafe or anything like that…
As for MAX and the steel bridge, yes, we’d have to build/operate the purple line (Thanks Bob R), and probably some other things too.
One of the more interesting reactions was from (if memory serves) a representative of the regional transit authority, who conjectured (with a straight face) that if DC-area subways and buses were free, the resulting crowds would seriously exceed the system’s capacity.
This was the same issue that was raised in Portland. There are actually two parts to it. The first is that many of the new riders will be very short, “low value” trips. Essentially, people hopping on the bus for a couple blocks instead of walking. The other is that, given limited resources, is it better to expand service to new areas or concentrate it to handle the low value trips that a fareless system will engender.
Mike –
Regarding the capacity of the Steel Bridge, TriMet has claimed that this number is approximately 30 trains per hour per direction (at different meetings from different people I’ve heard numbers as low as 28 and as high as 33), which may involve modifications to traffic signal priority in the Rose Quarter area. I’m guessing 28 is a safer bet than 33.
Right now peak eastbound trains from downtown (starting at about 4:30) per hour are:
10 Blue Line
4 Red Line
6 Yellow Line
————-
20 Total
When the Green Line opens, that could jump to 24.
There has been some criticism about the optimism of those numbers. I believe Jim Howell has stated that he believes the timing of the downtown signal grid will not support that many trains crossing each other’s paths where the transit mall meets the original MAX tracks (sorry Jim if I’ve mischaracterized that.)
My main concern is that it is very easy for delays to happen in the Rose Quarter area. 30 trains per hour only leaves a 2-minute margin (although that’s not 2 minutes at each platform, it’s 2 minutes at the interlocks/traffic signals) — it is easy to imagine a delay of one train of a few minutes becoming a cascading delay until the peak period has cleared.
Nonetheless, if TriMet’s predictions about capacity are correct, that means there is room for a 50% improvement in peak hour capacity over what we are running today, without changing much else operationally.
Beyond that (we could hit that capacity ceiling in 10 to 20 years), we need to look at more extensive (expansive? expensive?) options, including:
1. More tracks on the Steel Bridge — this would eliminate a few (but not most) interlock/switching movements per hour, but would likely banish auto traffic from the Steel Bridge.
2. Elevate auto traffic from where Lloyd Blvd. becomes Interstate Ave. at Oregon St. to just shy of the Broadway Bridge, as well as the Multnomah St. / Interstate Ave. intersection. This would allow trains to move freely without waiting for cars (and cars won’t have to wait for trains, either), and might make enough of a difference that additional tracks aren’t needed on the bridge.
3. Move the Red/Blue/Green line tracks underground. See How I would untangle the Rose Quarter.
4. Buy lots more of the new rolling stock… the Siemens S70 cars on order for the new Green Line omit 2 redundant operator cabs and essentially become permanent 2-car train sets, and are also 7-feet longer (just fitting into our 200ft blocks). This allows more people to fit in each 2-car train. TriMet is claiming approximately 40% passengers per train. When the Green Line first opens, these shiny new cars will probably be allocated to that for a few months, but should eventually be deployed to the lines with the most crowding (Blue and then Red).
5. Add a turning track at Waterfront park at the foot of Yamhill/Morrison (the “Purple Line” pic that Matthew linked to) — this will allow more trains to serve the west side, which is growing rapidly, without facing any bridge-induced delays. It does nothing for the east side, however, and if Jim is correct about the limitations of the downtown grid, may not have much capacity for growth.
– Bob R.
Actually this is not correct. The bus drivers are instructed not to “enforce” fare collection because of the potential liability if a confrontation ensues.
Then there better be a lot of TriMet managers on the line 12 bus and start writing up drivers left and right. I have never – NEVER – seen a Transit Police officer or Fare Inpsector make a surprise visit to a bus to pull a fare evader off. Not once.
(Maybe, just maybe, they’ll see how crappy the service is, with busses that frequently run 10-15 minutes late, severe overcrowding conditions, and broken busses, and see what I put up with on a daily basis. Then again, maybe that’s why they don’t bother, because they don’t want to see first hand how bad the bus has become. After all, why would Fred Hansen – the chief TriMet manager – want to be photographed on a bus doing his job managing our regional transit system, when he can be photographed shaking hands at a City of Portland Streetcar party??)
I don’t know whether AMR bills for paramedic calls. I certainly hope not; other cities have real problems with that mess.
You bet AMR (and Metro West, on the west side) will bill you if you are transported! I’ve received ambulance bills (thankfully paid for by insurance, but not everyone has insurance).
You also pay for water/sewer service, garbage service, certain park services, building/development charges – there’s a whole slew of charges paid for by user fees.
In some cases, the fire department can send you a bill. And gas taxes are a form of a user fee; should ALL roads be “free” (paid for through non-user based property taxes)? I wouldn’t mind saving nearly 40 cents a gallon on gasoline…
I have never – NEVER – seen a Transit Police officer or Fare Inpsector make a surprise visit to a bus to pull a fare evader off. Not once.
Once – just once – in my nearly two decades of riding buses (and MAX) have I seen transit police waiting at a bus stop, then board a bus and write citations to evaders: under the Tacoma St overpass on McLoughlin Blvd, during afternoon rush hour, back in the late 90’s. But I’ve seen them on MAX and MAX platforms between Pioneer Square and Sunset TC at least half a dozen times this year alone.